Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/archives/2024/September

Feedback on Pre-Review process

This conversation has been marked for the community's attention. Please remove the {{flag}} when the discussion is complete or no longer important.

We have now had at least 17 pre-reviews on at least 15 articles and counting over the past 2 weeks or so, including at least 8 done by me. As such, I think we have a basic idea of how this process is working. How is it? Authors who have recieved a pre-review (@BigKrow:, @Asheiou:, myself, @Lejar:, @Uju4Ever:, and @Professor Penguino:), is it helpful? Pre-reviewers (@Michael.C.Wright:, myself, and hopefully Asheiou at some point), how is it for you? Reviewers who have reviewed after a pre-review (Asheiou, @Tom Morris:, @Heavy Water, and @Cromium:), was the pre-review helpful to you? Generally, is this process helpful and should it continue?

If you support the continuation of the pre-review process, do you support any changes to the pre-review proposal policy or is it good to go? Should we decide to adopt it, how should we enforce the requirements and how should we grant the permission? Will users be allowed to decide to opt out of pre-review?

Please share any and all feedback about the process. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the only requirement for pre-review should be auto-confirmation. If the point of a pre-review is to have it open to more people, just creating a tiered pre-reviewer permission is counterintuitive, especially if a permission would have to be applied for. A.S. Thawley (talk) (calendar) 22:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

"I think the only requirement for pre-review should be auto-confirmation" - The idea, at least my idea, of pre-review is that people with some idea of what they are doing can help out new users. A user can be autoconfirmed from doing something totally unrelated to writing an article and will likely have no idea what they are talking about. The other requirements were made so that someone at least has a basic understanding of policy, has had articles actually pass review before (you can't review someone elses work on something if you can't do the work yourself), and there recommendations will do more good than harm. The idea of application is just because I think it would be annoying to try to get it granted automatically, but the proposal states that it should be granted to anyone meeting the requirements except in rare cases. @Asheiou Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

My idea of the pre-review "role" was less of a formalized role and more of semi-formalized process anyone could follow, even if they do a poor job of it (at least the first time or two). The goal is to create a pipeline for new reviewers. I think we need as little friction as possible in creating new reviewers without compromising the quality of reviewers.

Having said that, I'm not against a formalized role. I would like to see how consensus develops around it. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 17:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I do think that a bad pre-review can be confusing thought as many people will find up following the incorrect recommendation. As well, at least for myself, by first 10 or so edits were adding punctuation (to a now deleted article). Would you have really thought I would do anything but give useless/harmful recommendations at that point? 5 articles and you’ll at least know enough to be helpful. Activity is avoid pre-reviewers who don’t respond in a reasonable timeframe and given how pre-review is pretty new and changing so they will keep up. @Michael.C.Wright, Asheiou: Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it has been very helpful to me, as a new contributor. Lejar (talk) 10:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks for the feedback. For me that is a primary mark of success; assisting new contributors understand how things work here, especially given our approach of limited documentation and policies and higher dependence on institutional knowledge. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 17:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Totally agree with @Michael.C.Wright:. Honestly, despite all the debate over details of the proposed policy, so far this has been implemented and the people getting pre-reviews, the pre-reviewers, and the reviewers all find it helpful. That is point, lets remember that. @Lejar, Asheiou: Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Me Da Wikipedian, for starting this conversation. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 17:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Your welcome. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

NOTE:Asheiou was granted preview status when they should not have been by @Bddpaux: and made 1 review before the status was removed. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I can say that in the one review I did, I found the issues highlighted by the pre-review useful for informing my review outcome. I agree with @Heavy Water that pre-review just by its nature can never be used to assure the publishability of a piece, but it can be used to point out things to work on.

My continued hesitancy with pre-review is that all the time spent pre-reviewing could be spent fixing the article to a standard where it can be published. A.S. Thawley (talk) (calendar) 22:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

"pre-review just by its nature can never be used to assure the publishability of a piece" - which is why the pre is there. "all the time spent pre-reviewing could be spent fixing the article to a standard where it can be published" - this actually brings up some other interesting questions. Can you pre-review your own article. Also, is can pre-reviewers pre-review an article they fixed up heavily, like I have done at IDF missile strikes UN school and Last civilian hospital closes in Darfur, Sudan? @Asheiou Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can effectively review their own work, that's why we do peer-review.

Pre-reviewing something you did lots of work on should be okay, because it's a *pre*-review. An uninvolved editor will still go through and work out any issues a pre-reviewer may have inadvertently introduced. A.S. Thawley (talk) (calendar) 22:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

"I don't think anyone can effectively review their own work" and "Pre-reviewing something you did lots of work on should be okay," are sort of contradictory, as if you did a lot of work on it you are kind of reviewing (partially) your own work.@Asheiou Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

[A]ll the time spent pre-reviewing could be spent fixing the article I agree with the general principle. However, a reviewer is limited to how involved they can be in producing an article. There are bright lines such as adding sources that disqualify a reviewer.[1] I think pre-reviews are most valuable when they are done in the context of an actual review. Therefore any recommendation to not publish should mirror why the same article would otherwise fail review, such as WN:Source problems, extensive copyright problems, etc.

A.S. Thawley, you raised that point before and after reading and agreeing with it, I updated the template's documentation by recommending pre-reviewers first "Perform any desired edits to the article to help improve it..." The ultimate goal of a pre-review is to get articles published easily and quickly and therefore correcting as many problems as possible before review is helpful. Maybe I should update the proposed policy (that could also just become a guideline) to reflect that, because it is a very good point. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 17:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

”I should update the proposed policy” - Please don’t until we can reach a consensus, just so that we have a thing that exists (and stays the same) that we can propose changes to and then make only changes we agree on. @Michael.C.Wright: Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I also meant to add that pre-reviewing one's own work goes against the spirit of peer review, in my opinion. Authors often read their own words as they intended, not as others might interpret them. An uninvolved reviewer is more likely to spot errors. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 17:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

"all the time spent pre-reviewing could be spent fixing the article to a standard where it can be published" - by this logic, provided there is another reviewer who could review, reviewers shouldn't give not ready reviews, just fix it. And yet they do.@Asheiou Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

There's no guarantee that another reviewer will actually be available or willing to review something. Not ready reviews given out by actual reviewers are essential to ensure that reviewers don't lock themselves out of reviewing. The difference with pre-review is that a pre-reviewer has no ability to actually publish a piece, so their ready assessment isn't binding. The roles are different. A.S. Thawley (talk) (calendar) 23:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

"There's no guarantee that another reviewer will actually be available or willing to review something" - there are certain times you can be reasonably certain. Again, I think that whether or not pre-reviewers can lock themselves out of pre-reviewing does make a difference here and a large one. The other value of a not ready review is if the pre-reviewer doesn't have the time, interest, expertise, to fix it. As well, some choices can be up to the author (problem X can be solved by Y or Z). Furthermore, a not ready review allows the pre-reviewer to give recommendations to the author and reviewer, allowing the reviewer to check if the issue was fixed quickly rather than needing to find it. As well, part of pre-review is to help users gain experience with reviewing, and for reviewers to know how well a job they did. @Asheiou Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The pre-review process benefits everyone: reviewers, reporters, and potential reviewers. For example, it helps identify uncertain issues. By using {{pre-review}}, questions can be raised, and observing how reviewers address them provides valuable feedback. This helps reporters avoid future issues and allows reviewers to understand pre-reviewers' capabilities. Ideally, the original author can address potential issues before review, making the reviewer's job easier and faster and hopefully lead to more published articles. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 17:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I was persuaded by Michael.C.Wright's comment above that this could be a good thing. I looked to poke holes in it and it seems like a solid proposal, mostly. But I would prefer pre-reviewers to need to be a MediaWiki user group with formal approval, on further thought. That's the only way I can see to guard against situations where people completely ignorant of what they're talking about, even if well-meaning, give schlocky pre-reviews, reporters don't know that the advice is inaccurate or incomplete, and experienced users have to go in and explain what the pre-reviewer got wrong. Whereas if pre-reviewers are required to have at least some experience, they're less likely to give poor advice and cause further trouble, and if they do that — which they probably would, sometimes — there's a lot less they need to be corrected on. I think they shouldn't be able to pre-review articles they'd worked on significantly (judged by the same standards as for reviewers), for the reasons stated above of leaving choices up to the reporter and of the benefit of peer review, and also because reporters, to the extent possible, should learn by doing of having to fix problems with their articles. Heavy Water (talk) 06:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

" I would prefer pre-reviewers to need to be a MediaWiki user group with formal approval" I think that would be a bit difficult (anyone, please contradict me if I'm wrong) to get for 1 relatively inactive site. "the only way I can see to guard against situations where people completely ignorant of what they're talking about, even if well-meaning, give schlocky pre-reviews" - I think my idea of 5 articles including 1 in the last month and autoconfirmation, as well as a small bit of admin discretion (or however would give this should we make it more formalized).

I completely agree with you. I would say that it is optimal to have a formalized group, however it would not be by community consensus (as those are so hard to get around here), just the granting admin. Here is something else. So far, both of our pre-reviewers have made minimal errors, none of which caused too much damage. Allowing any autoconfirmed user to pre-review (which would through a bit of estimation be around 140,000 users or so) would result in the vast majority of pre-reviewers having no idea what they are doing. No pre-review would be better than this.@Heavy Water@Asheiou Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

After 1 week

After 1 week, here's what we have agreed on:

1. Unanimous consensus that a pre-review process should exist in some form
2. Unanimous consensus that pre-reviewers should be able give a recommend publish review
3. Unanimous consensus that pre-reviewers may not pre-review they're own articles.
4. Unanimous consensus that pre-reviewers must be auto-confirmed or confirmed

Here's what we have a disagreement on:

1. Can Pre-Reviewers give out Not-Ready pre-reviews?
2. Can Pre-Reviewers pre-review an article they have worked heavily on?
3. Should there be other requirements for pre-reviewer (other than confirmed/autoconfirmed) and if so what should they be?
4. Should Pre-Reviewer be a formalized group?

From this point forwards, pre-reviewers should follow the 4 statements above that we have agreed to. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@User:Heavy Water said But I would prefer pre-reviewers to need to be a MediaWiki user group with formal approval, on further thought. How do we make that group—who would we task to do so, an admin? If we are making a new group of pre-reviewers, should we attach 'patroller' privileges to that new group? See also: Wikinews:Water_cooler/policy/archives/2024/April#Additional_Checkusers_and_maybe_patrollers Patrolling new pages seems like a good fit for "pre-reviewers." Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 14:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Below are my responses to the open items listed above:

1. Can Pre-Reviewers give out Not-Ready pre-reviews?
   • I think a pre-reviewer's ability to recommend in both directions (publish/not ready) is vital.
2. Can Pre-Reviewers pre-review an article they have worked heavily on?
   • I think a pre-reviewer, as a peer reviewer, must maintain distance just as a reviewer must.
3. Should there be other requirements for pre-reviewer (other than confirmed/autoconfirmed) and if so what should they be?
   • We should make it very easy to give (and remove) pre-reviewer privileges. Otherwise we ultimately make it harder to give reviewer privileges. Therefore, in my opinion, fewer requirements are likely better than more.
4. Should Pre-Reviewer be a formalized group?
   • I feel like it adds a hurdle to require a collective decision to allow one to pre-review an article. But I see the potential damage a poor review can do. I (grudgingly) agree a formalized group would mitigate that risk.
   • Question Should all pre-reviews stop now that we are converging on consensus in favor of a formalized group?

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 14:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

"Should all pre-reviews stop now that we are converging on consensus in favor of a formalized group" - No. A few reasons:

1.Further pre-reviews are still providing benefit

2.More pre-reviews means more of a "sample" to know how well pre-review works

3.I believe that no one has suggested guidelines/requirements that any current pre-reviewer does not meet

Patroller actually seems like a great idea to add to the "pre-review package". I agree that fewer requirements is better. I'll explain why I think the 3 I gave are needed though.

Autoconfirmed:To allow them to be able to move the page, which sometimes does need to be done. Not a huge detail...but considered other requirements they'll probably have it anyways

5 articles:So that they will actually have knowledge about WikiNews. You can teach what you don't know yourself.

1 article in the past month:So that we only get people who are semi-active as pre-reviewers. Also to avoid someone who hasn't been here in 10 years getting pre-review and also probably not knowing what they're doing. And, of course, there are some people who could have gotten 5 articles even before peer-review was made. Keep in mind that we do have "rare cases" in there, and our admins can use common sense.

Here is actually another question:When review permissions are removed through PEP, are they automatically a pre-reviewer? Is there PEP for pre-reviewers?

@Michael.C.Wright Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Cromium as you have conducted the vast majority of reviews after a pre-review, do you have an opinion? Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm just reading this and I don't understand why pre-review even exists as a separate category. I can always edit an article and leave a message on talk page. Why does it have to be marked as 'pre-review'? Gryllida (talk) 04:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright is honestly better at explaining it than I am, but basically pre-review has more goals than that which leaving a message or editing won't fulfill:

1.Improve the chances of the article passing review. Editing and talk page messages will help here, but a pre-review is more formalized in that the pre-reviewer approaches it like how one would review an article. This means that they will (hopefully) bring up everything needing fixing on the article, and will also pass any part (or everything) they think is already ready to be published. As well, a pre-review with all sections passed is more likely to, indeed, be passable, and would be (theoretically) reviewed first, since its more likely to be passed.

2.Identify good reviewer candiates:If someone consistently leaves good pre-reviews, then I can be reasonably confident that they will leave good reviews as well (as ultimately the main difference between pre-review and reviewer is that the pre-reviewer can't actually pass/fail the article). Also, if someone consistently leaves bad pre-reviews (outside of maybe asking them to not pre-review or teaching them), they are probably not a good reviewer candidate.

3.Prioritize reviewer time:There is virtually always tons good articles going stale due to lack of reviewers (as I side note, @Gryllida, I think you're a reviewer, could you review something?). If something was passed in pre-review it is more likely to actually pass review, and as such should be reviewed first (as the goal is to get the most publishable stuff published), and something failing pre-review should be reviewed later because it is much less likely to actually be passable. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

This looks like a set of things that a talk page comment would do. It was explained that the difference is that a pre rreview can include an assessment of "everything", well a talk page comment can too and it can also include a note "I think this is ready to pass a full proper review".

On my user page there is a note about an utility that delivers notifications to users about new drafts, or new published stories, in categories of interest. It was running for a few months and then stopped. Please advise if you would like to help me maintain it. Gryllida (talk) 07:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe what we really need is to maintain a steady output of published content. We've gone almost two full months now without a published article. It would really help if some reviewers re-engaged and reviewed some articles and sighted changes in the review queue. If we are unable to consistently publish news articles, I believe the project will qualify for being merged with another project (Wikipedia) or archived as part of the Procedure for Sibling Project Lifecycle, if/when it becomes active.[2]

Regarding the pre-review template, it's primarily meant to groom and identify potential, new reviewers. The intention is that in completing all the fields of the template, pre-reviewers systematically evaluate an article against the writing pillars. The template also produces a consistently formatted response that authors and reviewers both can quickly read and understand once they are familiar with it. In short, the {{pre-review}} is merely a comment on the talk page that is at least consistently formatted. The hope is that reviewers can identify users who are interested in becoming a reviewer and who have demonstrated potential through pre-reviews. The status quo is not working. We need to come up with a way to increase the number of active reviewers.

All three of the current article in the review queue have been pre-reviewed. You can take a look at them to see working examples of the results. I would say that in each case, the pre-review has provided useful feedback—useful to both the author and the reviewer. The output conveys feedback in an easily understood format and in many cases already, has resulted in corrections that would otherwise result in a failed review. There has been one article published after it "passed" a pre-review. [3]

We also need an admin's assistance with the license upgrade project.[4] We've been trying to get assistance with that project for several weeks.[5] We've done all the work we can without admin assistance and are now ready to ask Meta for outside assistance if we can't get local help. We've recently, as a project, chosen to become a global sysop wiki to get outside help with admin tasks such as speedy deletions and vandalism, because we don't have enough active admins to support day-to-day maintenance. I believe the project is circling the drain and is in serious need of re-engagement by reviewers and admins. The project fails at its core mission without them. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 15:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. By my view pre reviews can be done by anyone. It would probably not misused for the next century or two while this is a small wiki. If it becomes misused and blocks do not help then maybe making a user right for it could make sense.

I didn't realize the gravity of the situation about two months with zero published articles. I have commitments for my health and family that prevent me from reviewing major stories. I usually do not and did not review stories on US politics. By the time I realized what their two major parties were I would already start thinking that this is deeply irrelevant to my existence (I am on a completely different continent). I can alleviate this situation by checking other submissions and by becoming more active as an author.

In my opinion it helps to also connect with contributors and reviewers through video chat and in person, then activity and collaboration may rapidly increase. I tried this on a Linux related group and it worked on multiple occasions. Having a stronger connection with another member of the group helped keep it prolific and inclusive. I can connect on matrix, sip, bigbluebutton, etc. My timezone is around utc+10. Gryllida (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

(Side note, on my user page it says my IRC nick, I would think email and irc would be first point of contact for admin help before Meta. I check itc every hour and email about 3 times a week. Other reviewers and admins may have some other contacts on their user pages.) Gryllida (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

About admin work I am surprised the software does not have a button to send email to all admins. I was not even aware of any of these tasks or globalsysop changes mentioned. It would have been nice if I was notified by email. I will try to check what needs to be done within next two days when I am back home and at my desktop. (I appreciate you writing abour them here now.) Gryllida (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I checked and

• there is no clear description of differences between the licenses. I asked about it within that discussion.
• I did not understand why a change is needed, Wikimedia movement mission is to create freely licensed content and the current licence is free enough by their definition. This is my opinion. Consensus may be different.
• The voting section name was changed in middle of vote, perhaps another vote needs to occur here for the sake of clarity. I will need to read more thoroughly to understand whether this is needed. It is Friday evening and I am usually away on weekends but I will try to peioritise this.
• This is about licence change. It does not resolve question about articles publishing activity. We don't even have a WN:AAA-like page for reviewers...? More on this later.

Gryllida (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gryllida you are commenting on a section about pre-review, not the license change. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Me Da Wikipedian. You are welcome to move my comment, otherwise I will do it in a few days when I am on my desktop. Gryllida (talk) 10:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

There are many otherwise decent articles that are sitting in WN:ABAND because there wasn't any reviewer resource available in a timely manner. Flagged revisions was a policy enacted on Wikinews originally to satisfy a requirement for Google News syndication, but many years later I'm not sure such a policy is still sustainable. Instead of trying to create additional process, have we put thought into replacing the reviewer process with this lighter format entirely? Microchip08 (talk) 10:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Microchip08 thank you for the notes, A few points

• I think it would be lighter if everyonne just agreed to write about my country and nothing else. I am poor at processing information about other places.
• Whatever is done, in my personal view the 5Ws in first paragraph is still a requirement. Would you agree?
• I can check the 5Ws were answered correctly, but if it is outside of my country or topic, I get stuck on verifying the second paragraph.
• Please review something now if you can, or have a look. Does it feel to you in the same way? That you can easily review first paragraph, but if topic is boring, you lack motivation to proceed? Or what is it that prevents you from completing a review?

Thanks, Gryllida (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

As a side note, one thing that tended to help me, and still does, is having someone available in real time when I am editing or reviewing. On wiki communication is good and transparent but is not real time. Even IRC level real time is nuts compared to a audio chat. (I am not suggesting audio chat for here; this is observation from elsewhere.) There were a few reviewers on irc, but now there is only one. This complicates things a bit. Another thing that complicates communication is slow typing on irc (rare, but happens). Thought it is best to share this here before I forget it. Gryllida (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gryllida "it would be lighter if everyonne just agreed to write about my country and nothing else" - I don't really think thats a reasonable request.

I would agree with the second. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't mean it as serious suggestion at time of writing. If seriously, I will reword it. It would be nice if there were one or two contributors who like to write about the topics that I like to review. Still thinking on that one, it was a bit of brainstorming... Gryllida (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Ultimately, (my understanding is that) Wikinews was at one point on needing reviews for every article publishing a bunch of articles. That was because there were active reviewers. There are currently no reviewers who are active long-term, and haven't been in a long time. We need more active reviewers. However light you make a requirement, there is no point if there is no one to assess it.

What we need is more active reviewers. So, any user who feels they are ready to become a reviewer, please nominate yourself. That is the only way this problem will be fixed. @Microchip08 @Gryllida Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The other way we can fix this is by removing the concept of formal review. The current approach is unique to Wikinews and significantly diverges from the way other Wikimedia projects approach the wiki way. Do we still believe the benefits of formal review outweighs the costs? It's difficult to recruit and retain reviewers if new contributors get their contributions staled out through no fault of their own, and people not reviewing quickly enough has been a problem for as long as I can remember. Microchip08 (talk) 12:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Microchip08 were you around when review didn't exist? Was anyone here around then? If so, do you think it was better? Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Could the call for reviewers be put as a site notice or what was it called, at top of every page. Link to page that says "1. read CG and SG, 2. write five articles at the rate of one every three days and rejoice if one is published & use it as learning path, 3. edit others' drafts for a month to assist in preparing them to be publish ready 4. apply to be reviewer" ...? Gryllida (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gryllida you can edit MediaWiki:Sitenotice if you wish. I would also advise that message I think you can't seriously learn to be a reviewer in 4/6 weeks, nor is reviewer based of how many articles you make/improve nor the time you have been here for. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

It was meant as a wider pool, then we can select. Gryllida (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gryllida, since it's a volunteer project, I don't think we should require a rate of writing articles such as X articles written every Y days.

Besides, if we don't have the reviewers to review articles at that same rate, writers will watch their articles go stale, which can be very frustrating. Without having all of their articles reviewed, we won't have good data on which to judge their understanding of what it takes to publish a good article. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 14:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't mean the timing as a requirement, only as a guide to reduce risk of frustration with 'I thought I could get this all done in a day' from new participants who think that writing a story takes 10 minutes and no further work required. Gryllida (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Who qualifies based on these? Wrote two or three articles which were successfully published, made 100+ edits in mainspace, is not a reviewer yet? Is there a list. Gryllida (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gryllida I think that is way too low for reviewer...but some users who have made two/three published articles in the past year include and 100+ mainspace edits include myself, @Asheiou, @Michael.C.Wright (currently nominated for reviewer), @BigKrow, and @Виктор Пинчук. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you possibly leave each of them a message on talk page and ask whether they would like to nominate as reviewer? Ask to include preferred region(s) and topic(s) of interest in the application, and whether they can do one review a fortnight within their preferred topic area. Gryllida (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gryllida Michael.C.Wright is nominated for reviewer, BigKrow has told me they have now wish to be one...Виктор Пинчук exclusively makes OR about stuff they do so I doubt they want to be one either...Asheiou has nominated themselves with no consensus...and as for myself would you really think that I am ready to be reviewer? Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

(You can link them to this discussion. I would ask myself, just late Friday evening,I am away on weekend, and if you can assist maybe we can get a reply sooner. Otherwise, I will message them a bit later in the week. Gryllida (talk) 11:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe also Kitabc12345

(This "reply" feature loses data half of the time I "paste" something into the textbox, and has ibadequate zoom on smartphone screen about 85% of the time, so annoying) Gryllida (talk) 12:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Could you please also check the same for last five years, if it is not too much trouble, it would be legendary invaluable to know? Gryllida (talk) 12:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gryllida Kitabc12345 doesnt have 2/3 published articles. Ill check the last 2 for you as anyone before that has been inactive so long that if they were a reviewer theyd qualify for PEP, ie.they have probably forgotten a lot. @CSJJ104, @JML1148, @Renamed user 2du13u4u8h, @Darkfrog24 and @Moondragon21 would be included by 2 years. Possibly more im nowhere near done yet.

However, other than Asheiou and maybe DarkFrog 24 if they were more active, I think all of these people aren't a great fit for being a reviewer. Writing 2-3 articles in 2 years is way too low a requirement. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Also @DRC-B5 but I'm done now...clearly none of these would ever gain consensus to be reviewer unless they do more stuff so.... Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

As one of the people pinged here (who has not created an article for over 18 months) it would be ridiculous for me to technically be eligible to be reviewer. Perhaps a 6-month threshold would make more sense. JML1148 (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposed alternative to pre-review process

Pre-review process? I have two concerns. 1) Does the English Wikinews have enough people who are active enough that adding another step to article publication would be viable? When I was active here, it was normal for perfectly good articles to age out of WN:FRESH for no reason but that the reviewers didn't get around to reviewing them. The problem was not that the drafts had too many problems; it was that there weren't enough reviewer-hours to get them through the pipeline. Has that changed? 2) Was there some issue, like with the Gatwick article, where an article was published too quickly and there was some form of consequence? In other words, does the English Wikinews have a problem that a pre-review process would solve? Because if the answer to both of these is "no," then I'd have to tell you to change the above to "not unanimous." Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC) Readded after third party's apparent misunderstanding over identity. Heavy Water (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

You make a good point. To clarify; pre-review is not meant to be a requirement, an extra step to publication, or something reviewers do. Hopefully this clarifies a bit; pre-review is meant to eventually take some load off the reviewers by allowing trusted pre-reviewers to do some of the leg-work for them, should they volunteer to do so. For example; if I have established that I consistently give good advice in a pre-review, a reviewer could spend less time on an article I have pre-reviewed and more time on another that needs more attention. This saves reviewer-hours, which we don't have enough of, as you rightly pointed out. If there are two articles in the review queue and I as a trusted pre-reviewer have already worked with the author to correct identified problems and I recommend publishing the article, a reviewer could do a quicker/shorter evaluation of that article, maybe to ensure all facts are sourced and accurate, there is no bias of omission, etc. They can skip less-critical (but still important) things like looking for style and format issues, trusting that they were corrected in the pre-review process either directly by the pre-reviewer or afterwords by the original author. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 20:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

In addition to @Michael.C.Wright's comments above, there are some other uses for pre-reviews. For example, if article X has issue Y that the reviewer couldn't solve without becoming involved, then the pre-reviewer can bring that up to the author, who will hopefully fix it before a review, thus reducing the chance that it goes stale/needs 2 reviews. As well, if you 2 articles in a review queue, one that passed pre-review and one that failed, and you trust the pre-reviewer, and you only have time to review 1, you would review the one that passed as its much more likely to actually be publishable. @Darkfrog24 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, that's more or less what I thought. I think this makes everything too complicated. The minute the Wikinewsie who wrote the first draft hits "submit," the article immediately belongs to all of Wikinews. Anyone may edit it for any reason (and I have). Anyone may hit the review button and submit it to the reviewers. The reviewer only needs to see what the article looks like at the time it is submitted, not who made which edit. We don't need to create a pre-review system because we created one long ago. Perhaps Wikinews could benefit from people doing it more. I also think creating an official status could exacerbate unhealthy social patterns that I witnessed during my years of heavy activity here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

So I guess my answers to Gryllida's second set of questions are...

1) No, pre-reviewers should not give articles not-ready status.

2) Yes, pre-reviewers should indeed feel free to do more work more on articles that they have already worked heavily on.

3) No, there should be no requirements for pre-reviewership. This is partially because the community is small enough that reviewers can learn which other users they do and don't trust and partially because the kinds of skills we would require (professional-level English mechanics, etc.) are very difficult to assess by consensus. People tend to be annoyed when other people correct rule-based things like grammar, punctuation, flow of fact, and adherence to posted site guidelines and policies, but that's exactly what we want Wikinewsies to do before formal review.

4) No, this should not be a formalized group. Wikinewsies should jump in and edit articles whether they drafted them or someone else did, so long as there is no "edit in process" tag active. Whether drafters should be able to control who works on the draft, say, to request request no further edits before review, is a separate issue. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24, yes any Wikinewsie can edit the article. Pre-review is a much more through process. The pre-reviewer is essentially suppossed to act like a reviewer in that they should fully look through everything, and then on the talk page post to the author what they did right and wrong. Done correctly, this can be very helpful for the author to learn. As well, the pre-reviewer can learn what they did right/wrong by comparing it to the actual review and hence learn how to review. As well, if someone consistently makes good pre-reviews then that is a great way to know if there a good reviewer candidate.

This can't be accomplished by everyday editing. The ability to give not-ready status and not being able to pre-review work they have made or heavily worked on is so that it is as best "practice" as it can be for actual review. The requirements and formalized group idea is mostly to prevent wrong or misleading advice, which, particularly when there may not be any other experienced user around to contradict them, can create problems. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

That does not sound good to me. "Help the author learn"/"what they did right/wrong" presupposes that the reviewers/pre-reviewers are always or almost always right about what the drafter should do. That has not been my experience here on Wikinews. Wikinews is better off educating new users through published sources and formally established policies and guidelines. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24 yes, that is the point of requirement for pre-reviewer, the hope that they are "almost always right about what the drafter should do". Fact is, reading every policy (or all the ones about article writing) is not something more first time contributors do. As well, there is a difference between saying "read the style guide" vs. "X over here is an issue with part Y of the style guide. You might want to consider changing it to Z". Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I think we're on the same page about what the proposal is. In the interests of not dredging up old business (which could be bad habits long broken at this point), I'll leave you with "thanks." Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24, what would you suggest instead? That's not meant to be snarky but an honest question. What do you think would be a good way to work with potential reviewers in a way that allows them to learn, practice, and demonstrate ability? The ultimate goal is to achieve more active reviewers.

If you can't think of a completely different solution, what would it take for you to feel more comfortable with the effectiveness of a pre-review process (aside from not making it a formal group, which I tend to agree with you on[6])?—Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 14:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I do have an idea that I think might work, but in the interest of not making assumptions, what exactly is the problem? What is the proposed pre-review system supposed to solve? When I was most active here, our biggest issues were poor new user retention, publishable drafts aging out for lack of review, and interpersonal conflicts. Any of those things might have changed since then, and even at the time, not everyone agreed about what was happening or what was causing it. Before I share an opinion that could upset some people, let's make sure it's an opinion on what people should do now, not what people should have done years ago. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24 There is 1 problem that I think myself, @Michael.C.Wright and any other reasonable active user would agree on...we are not an actual news site. That's it what pre-review is meant to solve. We have had not 1 but 2 gaps of no articles being published for 2 months this year alone. This year we have published an article every 5 days, but excluding 2 small outlier periods brings that number to 10. I personally don't feel that interpersonal conflicts are that huge of an issue (partly because theres rarely enough persons to have them). The issue of bad new user retention is (in my opinion) because of perfectly good articles going stale. I know that I was very close to quitting the project because of that and I know of at least 1 user who produced a bunch of articles, some which probably would have passed review, none of which got reviews, and I'm pretty sure they quit. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay... This is the short, short version of my solution. I can get into more detail if necessary: Forget pre-review and increase the number of reviewers.

1) Instead of inventing a new intermediate status, just increase the number of reviewers. Don't require the individual reviewer to apply. Either let anyone nominate or make it automatic after the drafting of X number of published articles, X number of months of activity, or both. Accept that different reviewers will have different interpretations of site policies and guidelines. Accept that our unofficial leadership will have less control of what does and does not get published and that the writing style will appear less uniform. Accept that reviewers can and will be wrong once in the while or even a lot.

2) Reviewers should divide review into two categories: A) Necessary changes (will not publish unless these changes are made) and B) All other changes (the reviewer thinks they would improve the draft but will publish the article even if the changes are not made). Items in category A should be limited to things required by formally published site policy only. Reviewers should draw these distinctions proactively; they should not wait for the drafter to ask.

I personally think losing the idea that reviewers are teachers and drafters are learners would help retention. I can get into why if necessary, but it might be a separate issue. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24 Anyone can nominate anyone (with an account) already, but the nominee must accept (which I think is a must). I think that simply making many published articles or lengthy activity is not a good candidate for reviewer. There is a user on this site (no I will not say who) who would meet any reasonable criteria based on published articles/length of activity who has never worked on any elses articles before and all of their articles are essentially self-promotion. I am not the onlyone who thinks this, at least 3 reviewers have said they will not pass their articles anymore. I do not think they would make a good reviewer. This is the problem, reviewer is a position of high trust, and meeting those requirements does not indicate trust. Reviewer requires knowledge not neccessarily gained through length of activity or published article count, nor neccessary not having by not meeting some number.

I would agree the second one, however I personally have not seen an instance where an article has been held back over category 2 of yours, so...

I think that if our most expereinced users don't teach people, then how will new users come to be familiar with the site and know our rules? Also, I can fix someone's article for them every time, or teach them once what to do and they will do it themselves. Which is better? Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Whether you think of it as trust, conformity or control, accept less trust/conformity/control. That is part of my proposal.

Only one user? My reflex is to call that workable, but let's go without dismissing your concerns. What if... What if instead of X published articles it was X published articles with zero category-A changes? Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────────────────────────┘
At a macro level, the review process focuses on the WN:Pillars and at a micro level there are many considerations within each of the pillars.[7]

@Darkfrog24, how would you classify the review process into your A and B categories mentioned above?

When I look at the review checklist I generated[8] from an archived discussion[9] of the then-new review process, I do see things that are already, implicitly like your B category. For example, reviewers that I've worked with don't make a big fuss about image descriptions contributing to the article and I've seen many articles published with the sources ordered incorrectly according to WN:Style.

Another question; do you think a relaxed peer-review system like the one you presented is enough to maintain our uniqueness from Wikipedia? One of the concerns is that Sibling Project Lifecycle[10] could be used to justify a merge of our project with Wikipedia. Wikipedia already covers news events and is able to get content published immediately and already has a tremendous advantage over Wikinews in terms of page-views.

—Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 13:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

If the reviewer(s) cannot link to a published, official, extant site policy or guideline if asked, then it's not category A, no matter how important it seems or how much better the article would be. If we need a guideline, we write and publish it for use going forward. If an extant guideline is not necessary or out of date, we change it or mark it historical.

I note in your link that Brian M is listing what he does himself, not what he commands other people do, so the issue of reviewers justifying their orders does not apply.

"Relaxed" is not the word I would use. I think "Severe lack of community activity" is higher up on our hierarchy of need. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Just to make sure I understand what you are saying; you believe 1) the review process is too stringent and that is causing the problem of too few active reviewers and 2) more reviewers plus acceptance of less control by reviewers, acceptance of a less-stringent reviewing process, and acceptance of more errors, possibly even corrections and/or retractions will increase community activity. Is that correct?

Again, that isn't meant to be snarky or a jab. I'm trying to ensure I understand what you are proposing. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 15:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

They're fair questions, MCW. 1) No, I don't think of the review process as stringent, not in either a positive or negative way. 2) I suppose it stands to reason that there would be more errors as a side effect, but "we must not have errors or retractions" is not why the review process has problems, or at least not why it did in my most active years here.

One of the problems with the review process as I knew it is that back-and-forth between reviewer and drafter slows things down. Both parties are volunteers and don't necessarily check in more than once or twice per day. When I was most active, if a drafter either couldn't or did not want to make a reviewer's noted change, that drafter had to address it on the talk page and convince at least one reviewer that the suggestion/order/whatever was no go. I've had reviewers tell me to change correct English to incorrect. I've had reviewers tell me to add information that either did not exist or was not available in the kind of source we'd need. I've had reviewers tell me to add information that was otherwise fine but would have taken much, much more time and effort than I thought the addition was worth. In most of these cases, attempting to discuss the matter, whether I provided proof or not ("My verb usage is correct as-is; here's a link to Purdue Owl," "Yes, the word I used really does mean that; here's a link to a dictionary," "Scientists only just invented this thing this year, so no I can't add the retail price because it doesn't have one yet," "No I can't 'say what kind of black they are' of these specific Black Americans; here's a little history..."), was followed by considerable hostility and bad feelings. By allowing reviewers to put their I-think-this-would-be-cool-but-it's-not-required-by-policy ideas in a category, we give drafters facing reviewer commentary that they either can't do or don't feel like doing a third option other than a) convince the reviewer or b) abandon the article: c) quietly make no issue of it.

I fully expect that, if we enacted A/B review, we might have to add, remove, or update a few policies. If you think something should be required, that's doable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

When you explain it like that, it makes more sense to me. I was going to post here that it seems if reviewers just enforce policies and guidelines, we are not changing anything. But now I understand you are talking about something else, which I believe is editorializing by reviewers—or reviewers assuming the role of an editor in journalism.[11] Would that be correct? Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 13:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

...I was kind of hoping you'd say, "I've never seen a reviewer order changes like those. Did that really happen?!"

Not exactly wrong, but closer to no than yes. We need to be careful with drawing parallels between Wikinews and paid/professional news organizations. On Wikinews, one becomes a reviewer by passing a request for reviewership. IRL, one becomes an editor through years of professional experience and often a journalism degree. If an editor does a bad job, either they're replaced or the news organization fails. Also, an editor may order a reporter to make changes that the reporter doesn't believe in because the reporter is paid in money. Here, our only payment is the satisfaction of a job well done. Another issue... If an employee does something, and it goes wrong, the employee does get to say "My supervisor told me to do it. I was just following orders." The last time I checked, nothing on Wikinews protects a drafter who makes a bad change just to be obedient, and seems likely that humoring a reviewer could look just like WN:POINT.

We're an all-volunteer, at least nominally amateur project, and we'll do better if we embrace that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24 if a reviewer does a bad job they will also be replaced. If you believe a change is wrong, discuss that with the reviewer. I think our reviewer are generally reasonable people. If you find a reviewer who is persistently demanding changes not supported by any reasonable policy and not providing reasonable justification for why they want said changes, then maybe ask for another reviewers opinion.

I'm aware that oftentimes there is a second (or even a first) reviewer to ask, but I think that if we have enough reviewers, which we anyways need, this is how it could and should work. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

None of the reviewers who left the change-correct-English-to-incorrect or say-what-kind-of-black-they-are type of reviews were replaced. I also had a guy who insisted that I'd misinterpreted the sources, but he hadn't read the sources (I'm not assuming this; he said he hadn't, and he did not do so when asked). He wasn't replaced.

Even a reviewer who is competent 100% of the time will sometimes ask for non-required changes that the drafter just doesn't happen to want to do. Category B is for that as well. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24 a reviewer who reviewed an article without reading the sources (unless it was obviously stale or something) is well...a problem. Persistent behaviour of that type should lead to replacement. And requesting removal of permissions does exist as a last option...

In my experience, when a reviewer asks for non-required changes they will:

1.Improve the article in some way.

2.Not doing them will not result in them failing the review.

Is your experience of this different? Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikinews:Water cooler/assistance is available to discuss disagreements in a place where they don't get deleted with the article. "Subscribe" to that page to stay in the loop? Gryllida (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gryllida this isn't a talk page...and I'd say a place asking for feedback about a process is a great place to discuss whether or not that process should exist and what other processes could replace it. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Very different, yes. If things on Wikinews have improved since then, that would be good. Plenty of time has passed. That's why I asked what problem pre-review was meant to solve before commenting. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Well I've also only been here for a few months so...@Darkfrog24 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

My experience was that my first year was relatively smooth because I was the new guy, and when people told me that I just didn't understand something, I believed them. After all, I was the new guy. I was also relatively obedient--because I was the new guy. After the first year, I knew enough that when a reviewer said "We always do things RED way, never BLUE way, tsk tsk tsk you should have known that," I could say, "We do too do things BLUE way. You approved two articles that did it BLUE way last week." We are better off acknowledging that reviewers differ from each other and from themselves over time, even short periods, and that that is okay. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24 I think that's fair...my question is that once you point that out, will reviewers still refuse to publish the article unless you do it the RED way or not? If so, do they provide a reasonable reason they have changed their opinion? Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 02:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I feel past tense would be less misleading. Pointing it out resultED at the time in hostility/bad feelings/fights. If you're thinking "That article is RED because it has trait Y and this article is BLUE because it has trait X," then no, nothing like that. The reviewers just changed their minds a lot and either didn't know they were changing them or liked to pretend they didn't change them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I can see that your block log is rather...extensive and your reviewier request also has 2 experienced users for what seems to be related to these disagrements...do you think its possible that in those cases you were wrong (or at least in some of them)?

Regardless, I'm pretty sure that in your disagreements you seem to be in the minority, and ultimately this sites rules are based of consensus so...@Darkfrog24 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Legit question: Remember how I said that the reviewers often asked me to change correct English to incorrect? I was able to find either on-Wikinews or off-Wikinews sources that showed the English was already correct either every time or almost every time. So no, I don't think I was wrong. I checked.

Going forward, we want Wikinews to draw and retain highly skilled writers, not only people who are still learning English. That means the drafter will know more than the reviewer does at least some of the time. If we demand that drafters pretend that reviewers are always right, then Wikinews will not retain skilled drafters.

One reason the block lasted so long is that I didn't want to attempt unblock during the pandemic. I didn't want people who were mad at the virus to take it out on me instead.

The more complicated answer is that there were a lot of multi-layered social undercurrents moving things around. One downside of creating a community is that sometimes people !vote based on who's their friend. I don't think it's realistic to say "The reviewers just shouldn't do that." I do think it's realistic to create an on-Wiki structure that allows the drafter to avoid situations in which one reviewer might feel obligated to support another for social reasons, saving both time and feelings. That's what this A/B system would do.

Gryllida refers to water cooler/assistance, and Wikinews does need a robust conflict resolution system (it did not have one in my day), but this is for when confrontation is necessary, not when a drafter is trying to avoid confrontation or prevent the loss of time. In other words water cooler/assistance solves a problem, just not the same problem that the A/B system would solve. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24 At least from my experience at Wikinews, I would be extremely surprised to see a reviewer persistently insist on incorrect english if you have given an authoritative source to the contrary. If someone persistly insists on obviously incorrect english, you have cited something reliable showing they are wrong, and they are providing no explanation but refusing to publish the article over it...that's not good. If this is a habit of theirs, and they refuse to stop, that user should not be a reviewer. Requests for permissions removal do exist, and in a case like that I would consider it. However, I would say that a reviewer that unreasonable will probably not use your categories correctly...

"people who were mad at the virus to take it out on me instead" - That is patently ridiculuous. I can't seriously imagine anyone denying an unblock request because they are upset at a virus. "people !vote based on who's their friend" - As you mentioned, it is not a vote, so if you have a bunch of people just saying "I agree with person X" they aren't actually adding anything consensus wise, or at least not on the same level as someone providing reasoning. And, yeah, voting fraud (which is essentially what your describing) is wrong. No one should say something they don't believe because someone else said it. I admittedly haven't seen this. What I have seen is reviewers publishing the articles of more experienced users even if they have some problem, when they wouldn't publish for a new user, saying after describing an issue (this is an actual quote from a review of one of my articles) "we'll let it slide through as a gesture of generosity and gratitude". I asked what the issue specifically was, so I could fix it, with no reply. I have also seen the freshness window extend for certain authors. I don't want to name names here, but This is unquestionably wrong. Wikinews is not a Quid Pro Quo system, and its time to stop acting like one.

What you are describing, and I'm certain that the other side of this would have a different perspective, is a severe problem with how our reviewers act. As I haven't seen this myself, I would appreciate some examples. What you are describing is something ludicrous and something that I have not personally seen, and I think that if you are correct, this could possibly neccessitate the removal of some of our reviewers. I would to see the original words of both parties here, because this is a pretty serious accusation for me to take at face value. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like your experience on Wikinews has been very, very different from mine. That's good. Since your query does not directly concern this proposal, I will take it to your talk page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Take 2 at 'pre-review'

There was 'pre-review' implemented while reviewers were unavailable or lacking. I've found it a rather complicated change. It included following changes which I tried to spell out separately. Please let me know if I missed something. Gryllida (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Template and category

Articles get tagged with 'pre-review needed' and then that changes somewhere, either to nothing or 'pre-review done', I don't remember. How does this banner displayed help? How does this banner, and categories, help compared with 'draft developing' vs 'draft developing and tagged with some issue (sources missing, stale, abandoned, not neutral, etc)? Gryllida (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• One point is that from 'developing/awaiting review' it goes to 'developing/awaiting review, pre-review succeeded' giving author (and possibly reviewer) some hope it can be an easy review. Is this a good thing? Gryllida (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the same effect can be achieved by having a draft in review queue without it being marked as a trouble (sources missing, npov issues, style issues, content issues, etc). Gryllida (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gryllida its a way for an author who particularly finds pre-reviews useful and wants a pre-review to specially request one (increasing the likelihood of quickly getting one). Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I created the category in hopes that eventually it could be used to get the attention of people who are willing to do pre-reviews, like MDW said above. The goal is to have the template add the category and then people interested in doing pre-reviews can see those articles listed in the category. I have not implemented the category with the template yet. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 15:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Template for filling details of Full review by a non-Reviewer

I agree this is helpful, and having a checklist template provided for feedback is good. This merely requires the template and documentation to exist and not necessary to tag articles with categories or banners, and user rights are not required. If someone wants to use the template then they can use it. I do not mind. {{pre-review}} Gryllida (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that we should keep the whole pre-review as simple as possible for now, while we tune and test it as a possible means to identify new reviewers and lighten the load on existing reviewers. I think if more reviewers see useful pre-reviews, it will gain in popularity and function. I see a new pre-reviewer group as another bureaucratic hurdle and we already have a high degree of paralysis by analysis. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 15:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Possibly separate user right or user group

Was this helpful? Was it needed? Are there issues if everyone can leave the 'pre-review' template on article talk? Gryllida (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I am personally concenered about the potential of wrong/misleading pre-reviews. Particularly if no one else is around to contradict them, this can then convince more users of the wrong things, who then convince other users, etc....as well, do you really trust a firsttime editor to give essentially conduct a review (albeit they are unable to actually publish stories or remove them from the review queue), but as a new editor who had their first articles pre-reviewed, I wasn't checking policies to confirm what pre-reviewers were saying, and nor will most new users. They will take it at face value. It's important that this feedback is generally correct. @Gryllida Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Was inaccurate feedback without a 'it is my personal opinion, just a question' disclaimer an issue previously? I've not encountered it. Gryllida (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gryllida I haven't either. Then again, myself and @Michael.C.Wright are the only users to have used pre-review, and neither of us used it when we first started. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I think making this a formally established group would cause problems. We're better off encouraging the user base in general to make improvements to articles on which they were not the initial drafter. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Particularly if no one else is around to contradict them... Oftentimes there is indeed no one around to contradict them because we often have no active reviewers. It's a circular problem. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 15:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I know...but misinformation about Wikinews spreading through pre-review is, in my opinion, a potentially huge issue. Indeed our policy is determined by consensus. If the new users who become the active users on the site believe that a different policy is actually our policy, and eventually they reach a position of something like reviewer, than that mistake has effectively changed the policy. @Michael.C.Wright Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I am assuming by misinformation you mean a different interpretation of what our policies are or how they are applied. In that context, what makes "our" policy more right than "their" policy? How is our current policy working to get quality articles published? [E]ventually they reach a position of something like reviewer... If they reach a position like reviewer, what makes "them" less of a legitimate reviewer than current reviewers?

If something works for active users, is not in agreement with our current policy, and it's good for Wikinews, then it fits WN:IAR and indicates the likely need for a policy update.

Besides, I don't see much risk in a mad rush of new reviewers taking over the project. We're spending more time debating the removal of privileges from existing reviewers than we are adding new reviewers. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 00:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright let's say I think that the freshness window for synthesis articles should be 2 weeks (or I mistakenly believe that to be the case). If I conduct pre-reviews, and now a bunch of new users believe that to be the case. Those users may eventually teach this to new users as well. Should one of these users become a reviewer (I agree this is a long term problem not one in the short term), they will now have the capability to publish articles. They will likely publish articles that are stale according to standards that the community has agreed on.

I know that consensus can change, but the way to change consensus is not to pretend that it is already changed. That should be obvious. What makes "our" policy more right is that it is based of a community consensus, versus a user who mistakenly believes that the community has decided on something different then what they actually have.

And by the way if you didn't notice, you're now a reviewer, so congratulations! Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Potential to identify new reviewers

For this to truly work, I believe a log needs to be saved somewhere, where it is not deleted. E.g. at time of article deletion, script to note somewhere "Article created by: ...; edited by users: ...; article talk edited by users: ..." (in deletion summary or on a wiki page like Wikinews:ArticleEditLog). --Gryllida (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Which new reviewers were identified? Which of them could have been identified just by reading talk pages of published articles and seeing meaningful collaboration and editing occur? Gryllida (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gryllida well I think that a big part of my and other supports for @Michael.C.Wright's review request is pertaining to pre-review, but well...outside of them I am currently the only other user who has used the pre-review template.

I think that its impossible to know the answer to "Which of them could have been identified just by reading talk pages of published articles and seeing meaningful collaboration and editing occur?"

G Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

A log is an interesting idea. And @Gryllida and @Darkfrog24 are right that we don't need a template for users to leave constructive criticism or otherwise jump into an article and improve it. But the predictable and uniform output of the template encourages a bit more formality and uniformity in the way an article is evaluated—this is meant to help develop a habit of formally and uniformly evaluating multiple articles over time. Additionally, when authors consistently see evaluations against the five pillars repeated by both the pre-review and review systems, they will hopefully improve their writing by anticipating and preempting those pillars before asking for a review. Better-written articles are easier and quicker to review; which takes a load off preciously few reviewer-hours. My hope is for the template to go as far "up stream" as possible in order to fix the problem of too few reviewers. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 15:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

There was or is somewhat of a log before by issuing barnstars on user talk pages for a user's first, fifth, tenth successfully published article. There is probably something to put for enthusiastic editing or collaboration when the article got deleted eventually. This could be utilized as a tracking system (though it is currently manual; in English Wikipedia, a draft review is automatically leaving a message on usertalk. Is this desired here?) Then could have authors user talk pages with categories e.g. "published 5 articles" or "failrd 3 articles" etc. Same could be done with reviewers. It is not fully polished thought, if there is a specific idea what needs to be implemented then I can try to implement it. Gryllida (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gryllida I don't have the coding knowledge for this, but if someone would make a script that would log on the author's talk page when a review or pre-review is conducted, as well as an Wayback Machine link, that would be very useful. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, (sub-topic: logging review actions and/or content for drafts), three options, 'at each review or pre-review' or 'at each review' or 'at article deletion'. What would be more comfortable to the author? They have current draft 'at each review or pre-review' anyway, the link would probably not be that useful to them personally. And can we/do we want to rely on WayBack Machine -- perhaps we can host our own infrastructure for just the archived text of the articles? Gryllida (talk) 23:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gryllida I'd be fine with our own structure as well, in fact if possible I'd say that better. I think that, before any admin deletes something (outside of spam/vandalism with no potential interest to future visitors), they should the page in question. Ideally, the entire page history could be saved.

Perhaps we should simply move the story. For example if a story "Person X does thing Y" goes stale and abandoned, instead of deletion it could be moved (maybe with suppressredirect) to Wikinews:Article Archives/2024/September/Person X does thing Y. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I think if a drafter has X number of articles that pass through to review with no changes necessary (referring to necessary changes, not optional ones) within any period of Y months, then that person should be flagged for reviewer, possibly automatically. For example, if someone has X no-changes-needed articles but they're spread out over too long of a period, or if they're like me and haven't been active for a long time, then we wouldn't flag them for reviewer in this way. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Oooooh, and to stay a reviewer, said reviewer must be the initial drafter of at least Z published articles per calendar year. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikinews:freshness of original reporting

Wikinews:freshness of original reporting is "Exclusive content has the potential to extend our freshness horizon by days or even weeks". How does this apply to the mpox story? Gryllida (talk) 00:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

It is my understanding that this is treated largely at the discretion of the reviewer and I think we need to explicitly codify or clarify it somehow. One of my chief complaints about the workings of en.WN is the idea of institutional knowledge as opposed to more-explicit policies and guidelines. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 14:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with MCW about a move toward more posted guidelines.

As for the monkeypox story, while we should make some accommodation for the idea that volunteer original journalism takes time, the questions "How likely is it that our readers have already seen similar information elsewhere?" and "Has this ceased to be relevant?" merit consideration. It's been a month and a week since August 14. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)