Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals

Page last updated: Monday 23 at 0237 UTC.

Markup for developing articles and the review process

Latest comment: 26 days ago51 comments5 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose I wouldn't require usage of this template as it would add difficulty for an article author. It would pass if it helped authors learn to verify information but I do not see it doing that either. It does not even save time for reviewer (at least me) as reviewer opens and reads all sources. I don't see any benefit and I see harm as it would lengthen and complicate authorship process. In my opinion, inline citations may be acceptable at Wikipedia where time does not matter but not in time constrained environment at Wikinews. Gryllida (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Markup updates

I have added the ability to add up to four sources to {{verify}}.
I have created ~~Module:DetectTemplates~~ Module:DetectDraft that detects the presence of {{develop}}, {{review}}, or {{tasks}} in articles.
- I have implemented that functionality in both {{verify}} and {{PhraseReview}} so that neither template is visible unless the article is in the developing or review queue or has been reviewed but has required {{tasks}} for re-review. This ensures that these templates do not render any markup when they are present in a published article.

Hopefully these updates will make the templates more useful to both authors and reviewers. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 23:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC); edited 00:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC); edited 18:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have previously used the verify template while writing articles to indicate which information comes from which source(s), and as an author I find this approach more useful. According to Cite sources, "...do feel free to provide hidden notes to assist reviewers in establishing which facts came from where; this is especially helpful with longer articles." In my opinion, using the suggested templates is a better approach. Asked42 (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the feedback. 👍 —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 17:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Could you modify the Verify template so that it would be possible to include quotations from sources? In Wikipedia, inline references can include a short (non-copyright-violating) quotation from the source, both as a way to inform readers as well as to help other editors verify the information. GreekApple123 (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi @GreekApple123

1. The verify template is actively used by Michael.C.Wright

2. Other reviewers work fine without it

3. A reviewer reads all sources to fact check. The time saving offered by inline citations is in my opinion only in edge cases like when a particular phrase is not obvious from sources, and inline citation kind of helps to show where it is from.

4. Adding inline citation is a lot of manual time consuming work. I do not see the benefit. Maybe only if you are planning to review by reading sources sentence by sentence and marking which parts of article have been verified thus far. I do the opposite: I read the Wikinews page, from first sentence to second sentence etc, from top to bottom, and scan the sources to verify what I have just read. This requires scanning the sources a dozen of times. This is time consuming. But for me it is less time consuming than reading each source once and spending time marking up which parts of arricle are verified and which are not.

5. As of now the usage of the verify template is not required. This template is removed when publishing. I would say best not to spend time on it.

6. Scenarios:

a. Either a thing is verified very well in multiple sources, no need to do anything, or

b. A thing is verified only in 1 or 2 sources then in article you can write "according to bbc and btn,..." in the text in a way visible to reader. ref WN:Attribution

7. But if you badly want to include quote, do it with |myquote=... parameter

It will be visible in source and that is sufficient to start with (unless Michael.C.Wright only uses the visual editor -- I do not know).

Hope it helps. Gryllida (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Gryllida, I would say best not to spend time on it. I disagree with this characterization. Multiple users have expressed interest in using {{verify}}, and several have already done so. That suggests it has value to the project, even if not everyone chooses to use it. Dismissing improvements outright risks discouraging contributors and stifling useful tools.

A reviewer reads all sources to fact check. That is the standard, but unfortunately not always the practice—as seen when articles are published with unverified content. Tools like {{verify}} aim to improve transparency and reduce the burden on reviewers, not replace their responsibility.

GreekApple123 Could you modify the Verify template so that it would be possible to include quotations from sources? I’ve considered this, but it would require adding a temporary section—like “Source quotes”—to the bottom of articles. That adds complexity I’d rather avoid while the current version is in active use and being tested. Since at least one reviewer opposes the template, adding features that might increase cleanup work before publication could be counterproductive right now.

Having said that, Gryllida's suggestion of the non-existent myquote parameter is a clever and pragmatic solution that will include the quote. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Michael.C.Wright

I apologise for controversial or vague remark above. Here is a clarification.

1. Publishing without fully verifying is in my opinion due to the reviewer not volunteering to check each word. My workflow:

1a check copyvio vis link

1b check the 5W

1c read all sources to just ensure that there are no omissions that create bias (like in "researchers show chewing gum helps to increase focus" news there is important aspect that it was funded by a chewing gum company. or in "boy was put in jail" news, if a source says "judge released him a day after", this is important to include) if some such info is missing then flag it

1d read the article and remember it. read sources again. if, while reading sources, i realised that they do not contain some info, or contain different info, then flag it

So this is different from "read first sentence of article, scan all sources to verify it true, read next sentence of article, keep going to end"

Or from "read first sentence of source, read wiki page check it does not contradict and does include that info if essential, read second sentence of source, repeat til all sources are read"

(of the latter two algorithms, I prefer the first one. I sometimes use it when the wiki page is annoying. like political or a sport page full of sport terms. or a breaking news so i need ensure it did not morph into something entirely different 5 minutes ago)

2. I would think if a reviewer is comfortable reading source then there is no need for visual element.

I think in future communications we need:

1) some written disclaimer stating that the verify template is optional to use - (a) at template doc page and (b) at any discussion when users are pointed to it (and myself to stop saying there is only 1 person on wiki using it) and (c) as infobox on any article draft which uses it.

The disclaimer should probably say "Verify template is optional. More info can be found on docs page of it"

I personally continue to strongly dislike it and I think it harms the news writing -- and I would like to add this all to that templatedoc page one day -- because

1. adding it takes time, which we do not have

2. adding inline citation may create situations when a thing is not attributed "i added inline citation so why would i attribute it" well, if AP reported a thing and bbc reposted it from AP, then it is not independently verified, and in final version the text should say ", according to AP". (WN:Attribution)

3. if 1 or 2 sources confirm a statement, the reviewer still has an obligation to check tge 3rd, 4th, etc source to verify. For rare cases of "I cannot verify line 23 of the article anywhere" perhaps inline citation would seem to help but : there is chatgpt "which of sources 1 2 3 confirms quote xyz" to help you if you did not see it (I am hoping wmf will host a similar tool on its own infrastructure, for now i make do with what we have), and there is article talk page with a dozen people available to nearly instantly search anything you ask, including adding a new source, scanning existing sources or their archived versions, etc, which is a lot faster and time efficient. Besides, if a "thing" is not verifiable by an experienced reviewer, then it is a publishing issue: the text should say where a thing came from, if it is not stated in multiple sources.

4. Any article revisions, which need to be done timely, become slow, because inline citations cluttered the text. They also become slow because for any thing I added, if I want Michael.C.Wright to sight the edit, I need to add an inline citation.

5. Noting that large articles are a pain to review, then I use either of the two algorithms mentioned above ie source scanning with anchoring on article or the other way around. It is a reviewer's obligation to check "this is accurate" against ALL sources, not only against 1 or 2 sources which were inline cited. "I am anxious/worried/concerned a reviewer will spend too much time checking 15 sources to verify 1 sentence" is not a valid excuse, because this should be done anyway, or not at all.

2) a javascript script button to delete all verify templates from an article so i can erase it when i am starting to review. setting all to hidden is not sufficient for me as i do not want to see them when using source editor.

cc @Asked42 @Leaderboard for implementing the latter Gryllida (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I will phrase it differently. I am concerned the {{verify}} template may add bias. It encourages a situation of reviewer agreeing with a word, phrase or sentence after confirming that the one cited source has it. In my opinion this is wrong. Either all sources should be checked, or, if being sloppy (which should not happen but I know it may), none at all. Gryllida (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I’m increasingly concerned by a pattern in your comments and actions that misrepresents others’ intentions and undermines core project standards.

They also become slow because for any thing I added, if I want Michael.C.Wright to sight the edit, I need to add an inline citation. I have never stated or implied such a requirement. This is a misrepresentation of my position and is demonstrably false. In fact, I have reviewed and published more articles from authors who did not use the {{verify}} template than those who did.

...a javascript script button to delete all verify templates from an article so i can erase it... If you want a script like that, you're welcome to write one or use an existing solution. The template documentation already suggests using TemplateScript, which I also use to remove HTML comments—another inline citation method consistent with and even suggested by our citation policy. Do you feel hidden html comments also add bias?

Publishing without fully verifying is in my opinion due to the reviewer not volunteering to check each word. Publishing without verifying facts or removing plagiarism is a direct violation of policy and when done repeatedly, should be grounds for loss of reviewer privileges. If you disagree with a given policy, the appropriate path is to seek consensus to change the policy—not to ignore it. I no longer rely on your review advice because I’ve seen repeated examples of rubber-stamp approvals and admitted publication of unverified or plagiarized material. That approach is not just problematic—it’s antithetical to what this project, and any credible news organization should stand for.

Either all sources should be checked... Do you not see the contradiction in making that statement while also admitting to publishing articles without verifying everything—or worse, publishing while explicitly acknowledging the presence of plagiarism? That inconsistency undermines both your argument and the project’s core standards. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 21:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Michael.C.Wright

While you may work with pages and diffs which do not have an inline citation, you seem to prefer it. At article talk pages I see your posts to the effect of "inline citatiins may be added and they may help to review". firstly this confuses new users as they might mistakenly think that this inline citations procedure is, perhaps, a requirement or a strong recommendation. it is currently not a requirement. i also do not think it is a strong recommendation. it is of no help to a reviewer as they need to verify a article phrase or sentence in all sources, or in none at all. verifying it against sources picked selectively is unhelpful and leads to bias transfer from one user to a next user. yes, i feel hidden html comments add bias. a reviewer should not rely on them. the only instance when an inline comment is helpful is when it is on a talk page where you know who it comes from, and can reply to it. it does not belong to article content.

so for example. a bus crashed. sources say 11 or 24 or 32 people died. we need to work out how to write a publishable final revision that is reasobabky accurate. the inlibe citation style would be "in the crash, apparently eleven [1] or twenty four [2] or thirty two [3] people died". this is pretty bad as it does not attribute the information peoperly (firstly, it does not say name of publisher, user needs to click through; secondly, it does not say what was the real source, i.e "source 1 was police report on monday, source 2 said it from a school announcement on tuesday, and source 3 said it based on a bus operator info tuesday night"). the latter bit, ie not saying where info really came from, is the most concerbing to me. that is why WN:Attribution exisrs here instead of inline citations. that is my current understanding.

hope it helps. Gryllida (talk) 10:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

i am uncomfortable with the accusation about me publishing low quality material. if you think it is a current issue, i ask you to post it at my talk page. Gryllida (talk) 10:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

┌───────────────────────┘
...firstly this confuses new users as they might mistakenly think that this inline citations procedure is, perhaps, a requirement or a strong recommendation. Please provide a diff showing where a new user has expressed this confusion.

it is of no help to a reviewer as they need to verify a article phrase or sentence in all sources, or in none at all. Likewise, please link to a diff where a reviewer has stated that {{verify}} is unhelpful for their review process.

we need to work out how to write a publishable final revision that is reasobabky accurate. Yes—we agree. That’s the minimum standard for publication. Publishing an article while stating, "I haven't verified everything,"[1] does not meet that standard and directly violates core policy.

i am uncomfortable with the accusation about me publishing low quality material. Do you believe that knowingly publishing articles that contain plagiarism—and which the reviewer expressly states they have not fully verified[2]—is “quality”? I do not. And I disagree that such actions should be discussed privately. Publishing unverified content or plagiarism impacts the credibility of the entire project, not just the individual article. That’s why it warrants open discussion.

I’ve already made several changes in response to your feedback: the documentation now makes clear that {{verify}} is optional, attribution in prose is preferred, multiple sources can be provided per fact, the template is fully hide-able to avoid clutter, and in the absence of draft templates such as {{develop}} or {{review}} it defaults to 'hidden' behavior. These changes were all intended to address the concerns you raised.

I also want to note that relying on hypothetical situations or straw man arguments doesn't help us improve our processes. If there are real examples where the template has caused confusion or burdened reviewers, please link to them. That would be far more useful to the discussion.—Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:10, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'll have Asked42 handle this - let me know if my input is explicitly required. Leaderboard (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think there is already a solution provided on the documentation page, which I believe works fine. Asked42 (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

It might be possible to introduce some kind of limited or intermediate pre-review process, where an article with inline citations can quickly have a "fact-verified" status added for each claim that can be traced to any or all of the citations. That would encourage greater granularity and focus on detail during the review process without avoiding the need for broader quality control before publication. GreekApple123 (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

GreekApple123, that would be relatively easy to incorporate and I may make that change later. I like the explicit, "fact-verified" statement.

Often when I perform reviews I will add {{verify}} as I verify facts, to keep track visually of what I have verified and where I found it. I then can mark all instances of {{verify}} as hidden using TemplateScript or simply remove all instances also using TemplateScript (it's a pretty handy tool).

Marking every fact "verified" in this way establishes a version of the article in the version history that is permanent (at least as long as the article is not deleted) that I can refer back to and know what facts I verified from which source. An example can be found here.—Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 19:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think the other thing about it is that it would allow reviewers and pre-reviewers to limit their involvement if they choose to, while still making a significant impact in collaboration with others. A reviewer might decide that instead of greenlighting a single article, they are instead in the mood to fact-check 3-4 articles and just offer basic feedback, which would then set up some other reviewer to do more of the final editing. GreekApple123 (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

i find this approach confusing. it means "hi Gryllida, i read first sentence and verified it against sources 1 and 3". this may in some cases be an issue if source 2 says some conflicting information. if this may be the case, then why should i even know? Gryllida (talk) 10:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well, for one thing, you'd only have to read source 2 to finish the comprehensive fact-check, as opposed to reading all three sources.

I see your concern to some extent (that quality control may be lost through selective collaboration as opposed to the normal process of individuals taking full responsibility), but it seems to me that on a Wiki platform, it should be possible for users to collaborate and do partial work individually that translates into something bigger together. I feel that on Wikipedia, inline citations and the ability to copy short quotes from the source is like a superpower, enabling a workflow where some users can tag unverified claims and other users can then work on sourcing them. It contributes to community sentiment and takes the stress off any one editor, because you can depend on others to monitor.

And inline citations can always be ignored as long as they are optional. So I would advocate for the approach where maybe a little bit of quality control is lost because multiple reviewers are involved and some of them are selectively engaging in and passing on their individual findings in the reviewing and fact-checking process, rather than demanding that each reviewer mentally engage with the entire process or not at all. GreekApple123 (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The discussion got broken. Please move my message to the correct location in the thread.

1) I don't have a diff where someone expressed confusion, but generally a user is likely to follow requests as they want story published. As stated before I think this should be avoided by indicating that the verify template is optional. And preferably by not asking to use it at all in light of the concern I have about inline citations.

2) I am a reviewer and I stated that using verify is unhelpful to the review process.

3) I do not verify everything in all instances. I verify the 5W. When this is the case I state it in my comments. This may or may not be problematic: there are only 24 hours left to fix issues. I am happy for it to be put for discussion. This does not diminish my concerns about inline citations which were stated previously.

4) I am not going to discuss the my publishing of low quality material in this thread as it would be not constructive and is out of scope here; please ask at my talk page.

I think the explanation about why inline citations is unhelpful is more than a straw man thing. It is an important aspect of writing and review. The 'this is optional' disclaimer should be clearly communicated in any requests to use inline citations.

I would suggest to delete the verify template because of my argument 'verify in all sources, or in none at all'. You probably would not agree to delete it now.

What I am wondering now is, whether you would agree that you would verify a thing in 'all sources or none at all', or do you stop after checking sources 1 and 3 from inline citation and not check source 2 for that particular information. That would be truly interesting for me to know. Gryllida (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The discussion got broken. Please move my message to the correct location in the thread. It's unclear who you're asking to do this, where you want your message moved, or why you're not doing it yourself. If you want it in a different spot, you're free to move it.

The 'this is optional' disclaimer should be clearly communicated in any requests to use inline citations. It is—and I do. That concern has already been addressed. For example, in [3], [4], and [5], I’ve used phrasing like "Consider using {{verify}}" and also suggested alternatives like hidden HTML comments. The documentation clearly states the template is optional. That should settle the matter.

I do not verify everything in all instances. I verify the 5W. When this is the case I state it in my comments. This may or may not be problematic It is against policy and is demonstrably problematic: [6], [7], [8] (this article contained copyvio)

I would suggest to delete the verify template because of my argument 'verify in all sources, or in none at all'. You probably would not agree to delete it now. I would support deleting the template if there were clear evidence it causes problems—but you haven’t shown that. You've offered hypotheticals and personal opinions, not concrete examples. I’ve already made several adjustments based on your feedback, including improving documentation and making the template optional and hideable. At this point, continuing to debate it without specific issues is unproductive. You're the only person who has objected to it. If you don’t like it, don’t use it. If you encounter it during review, remove it—just as you would with hidden HTML comments.

...whether you would agree that you would verify a thing in 'all sources or none at all', or do you stop after checking sources 1 and 3 from inline citation and not check source 2 for that particular information. That would be truly interesting for me to know. You already have an example. In your review of one of my articles, you added a figure taken from a single source. I had intentionally excluded that figure because another source gave a conflicting number—i.e., I read all the sources to verify the facts before requesting review, saw the discrepancy, and chose not to include the exact figure for that reason. You felt a figure was needed, but didn’t check all the sources to see they disagreed. [9] —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 00:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

┌─────────────────────────────┘
you'd only have to read source 2 to finish the comprehensive fact-check, as opposed to reading all three sources. I’ve made the mistake before of confirming a claim in one source and moving on—only to later realize that the other sources disagreed. Reviewers should read all sources and assess whether they support or contradict each other.

This example shows a case where I was the article’s author, and a reviewer—relying on only one source—added a claim even though the other sources disagreed. I had intentionally excluded that detail due to the conflict. The disagreement led to a back-and-forth of edits after publication, resulting in a convoluted mess in Flagged Revisions. Because the issue wasn’t resolved within the 24-hour window, the disputed claim and related edits ultimately had to be removed. It’s a strong case for why thorough, source-aware review is essential before publication.

it should be possible for users to collaborate and do partial work individually that translates into something bigger together. I agree and that is the reason I wrote {{verify}} and promote its use. I believe it is a collaborative tool. My goal is to develop a suite of similar tools that allow authors and reviewers to better collaborate and communicate as a team.

...inline citations and the ability to copy short quotes... My understanding is that Wikinews avoids inline citations because they don’t align with traditional news style. I agree with your underlying point, though—we should consider adapting our style to make sourcing clearer and context richer. This is especially important in a project where few contributors are professional journalists, making explicit sourcing even more essential.

...rather than demanding that each reviewer mentally engage with the entire process or not at all. I agree. In an environment with enough active reviewers who can collaborate effectively, it’s reasonable for one reviewer to begin the process and another to finish it. That said, there's been long-standing debate about whether the current review system is too rigid or should be overhauled entirely. I think that broader issue is muddying this conversation. My concern is that partial or rubber-stamp reviews are often done in the name of speed and convenience—but the outcome speaks for itself: we end up publishing lower-quality articles that require post-publication edits and corrections, which reflect poorly on the project and could have been avoided with more thorough review. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:44, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I’ve made the mistake before of confirming a claim in one source and moving on—only to later realize that the other sources disagreed. Reviewers should read all sources and assess whether they support or contradict each other. I think part of the key to resolving your and Gryllida's concerns around ensuring quality control and a more comprehensive check of the sources is to have something like the Verify template which can either hold a greater level of notes and information within itself on the developing article page (i.e. indicating which reviewers have fact-checked a particular claim, which sources they examined while fact-checking, etc.), or otherwise link to a section on the Talk page (perhaops auto-generated through template magic) with such information (perhaps with anchors and subsections with detailed analysis that can be specifically linked to). Are there templates with this kind of capacity currently?

My understanding is that Wikinews avoids inline citations because they don’t align with traditional news style. Perhaps the traditional news would've adopted something like inline citations if they had initially had Internet technology and weren't looking to maintain their monopoly :) GreekApple123 (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi @GreekApple123

1. I am concerned pointing 'a thing' to 'sources 1 and 3' disconnects reviewer from checking 'a thing' in source 2. It also creates a disconnect from 'Police said the bus driver was injured' in source ABC, which gets transferred to article as 'Bus driver was injured [ref to abc]" while it should be attributed to police in the article body, instead.

2. Having quotes from sources included in wiki is problematic because of copyright.

3. I didn't understand @Michael.C.Wright's note about "make sourcing clearer and context richer". If there is a software for journalism which has left pane with news article and right pane with sources and some fancy connections between them for verification, please show it to me. Otherwise it seems like a crutch made based on how Wikipedia works. So far I don't see a benefit from it.

3a. The reason this is useful in Wikipedia is for subsequent edits to not mess up an article which was pretty verifiable. Particularly as there can be 40 sources for a long article. So inline citations are helpful to keep encyclopedia integrity.

3b. At Wikinews this is not needed as the sources pertain only to current news event and there will be no risk of subsequent edits removing or editing a sentence which was previously well supported by a source.

Hope it helps. Gryllida (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

2. Having quotes from sources included in wiki is problematic because of copyright. That's a fair point, but even just paraphrasing, summarizing, or annotating whatever was found in the original source could be of use.

3b. At Wikinews this is not needed as the sources pertain only to current news event and there will be no risk of subsequent edits removing or editing a sentence which was previously well supported by a source. Well sure, but what about the period of time in which (multiple) Wikinewsies have to check whether or not the fact is "well supported by a source" or not? GreekApple123 (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Gryllida, I didn't understand @Michael.C.Wright's note about "make sourcing clearer and context richer". When an article is submitted for review, we typically get a body of text (the article) followed by a list of sources. Unless the author leaves notes on the Talk page, that’s the only communication we have. The implicit message is: every fact in the article is supported by one or more of the listed sources. It’s then the reviewer’s job to find and verify every statement (not just the 5Ws) against that list. By using either hidden HTML comments (explicitly encouraged by WN:CS) or {{verify}}, authors can point to the specific source(s) behind each claim. That’s what I meant by making "sourcing clearer and context richer."

Nowhere have I claimed that reviewers should only check the one source an author identifies. The documentation also does not suggest that reviewers limit themselves to only the sources listed in the template. You as a reviewer are free to ignore and immediately delete the template as step 1 of your review process.

I don’t understand why you continue to campaign against the template—telling others it’s a waste of time (above), dismissing it as merely my personal preference [10], and actively discouraging its use. This kind of framing misrepresents both the purpose of the template and the collaborative spirit in which it was introduced. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 00:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Um, ok. Then from my view we don't need to make sourcing clearer, as it does not ease reviewer's work. Gryllida (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your view. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 13:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Not only is a template helping to establish fact-source linkages useful, but also, there might be a use for a template which enables an evaluation of the sources themselves (i.e. how trustworthy they are, what information and general points they run over, etc.) GreekApple123 (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Pointing out sources can be unhelpful because 'fact check' process requires checking against all sources. Unlike Wikipedia, with news there is a higher risk that another source not consulted initially may have a newer or conflicting information. As a result of this higher risk, a reviewer checks each sentence against all sources, and encouraging a reviewer to assess a sentence against a particular source does not help to save time in any way. Gryllida (talk) 11:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

So you don't see anything useful about highlighting the linkages between facts and sources even to some extent, and you don't see anything worthwhile in highlighting the characteristics and usefulness of each individual source. GreekApple123 (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

For collaboration, no. I can see it useful on my own screen, but not with other users. They need to check themselves. This is more reliable. Gryllida (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Gryllida, ...a reviewer checks each sentence against all sources... — If this is the standard you're advocating, then I encourage you to consistently apply it. In contrast, your statement that I do not verify everything in all instances. I verify the 5W. reflects a truncated review process that is not supported by policy and has already resulted in documented issues, including the publication of unsupported claims and plagiarized content in multiple articles during April. Publishing plagiarized material is a serious violation of policy. Knowingly and willfully doing so constitutes a flagrant disregard for our editorial standards.

Your ongoing objections to {{verify}} are increasingly disruptive. The template does not alter or replace the review process. Reviewers are still expected to conduct a full and independent evaluation of every article, with or without the presence of {{verify}} or HTML comments.

To argue that such tools are unhelpful because reviewers "should" independently identify sourcing—while simultaneously declining to perform complete reviews—contradicts both policy and logic. This inconsistency has caused avoidable issues.

Your perspective has been noted, but it contradicts the guidance in WN:CS. There have been no documented problems arising from the use of {{verify}} or hidden HTML comments—both of which serve the same collaborative purpose. In contrast, the practice of performing partial reviews has demonstrably led to errors that required corrections to published articles.

You are not obligated to use these tools, but I again ask that you stop campaigning against them. They support collaboration and transparency—values we should be reinforcing, not undermining. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The exact approwch depends which page I am editing. On personal blog it can be checking nothing. On Wikinews it checking all. I cannot see a scenario when checking in selected sources is useful. Gryllida (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I suggest to not call it disruptive, as streamlining the process of checking in selected sources may lead to bias. I unfortunately do not have examples to show, perhaps other than a bus crash where 3 sources wrote 3 different numbers of casualties. Inline citing one of the 3 sources for N of casualties at random, and picking the number N from that source, would not necessarily be accurate. One of the other sources could be more up to date and more accurate. There was no publishing error caused by that so far but I think it is a risk I am not willing to accept. I am yet to see a rwviewer who follows the inline citations for reviewing. It is just another layer of work to specifucally check whatever was cited instead of checking everything. It becomes a time saver only for people who read slowly and do not want to check against remaining sources. Or what. I do not get it.

Especially not at the cost of effort it takes for author.

On the authoring side, I am yet to encounter a scenario where a user wrote a unsourced statement because he or she forgot which source it was from and decided to just make it up.

Rather than sourcing statements which are confirmed by multiple sources, the general apprpach here has been to not source them, but to write what happened. "5 people died in crash {bbc} {foxnews}" -> "at 11am on May 15, police spokesperson said that 5 people died and 6 were in hospital". And if in doubt, add ", bbc and foxnews reported". For majority of article there is no such doubt.

Repeatedly pointing me to flaws in my publishing in middle of other discussions, and without having them discussed at my talk page, is disrespectful and I ask it to stop. There were several contextual parameters for that and several measures taken, which I am not inclined to discuss here. Gryllida (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Feedback isn’t an attack. It’s an opportunity to grow. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well, duh, I already wrote that quote. I know what I was doing. Repeating it in my face with displeasure and at great lengths is not feedback. Gryllida (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Would it be appropriate to allow the Verify template to be used on Talk pages? This allows for easier discussion of article content and sourcing issues. GreekApple123 (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm having a hard time envisioning how this would work or maybe why this would be useful in Talk space. Could you describe an example of how it would be used?

It is currently intended to visually mark statements that either need a source or have a source.

In Talk space, I assume we would describe situations and mention sources in-line. A typical scenario would be to say in Talk space something like CNN says X, Y, and Z[11] and that serves as a "sourcing" function in Talk space.

It's not that it isn't currently "allowed." Right now, the template is designed not to display anything if the page it's used in lacks certain draft templates, such as {{developing}}, to prevent it from showing in published articles. This logic could be changed. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 13:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm suggesting this simply so that it becomes more possible to directly quote article content on the Talk page without the need for changing template logic (e.g. switching to your suggested "sourcing function"), which seems like a natural thing to do. GreekApple123 (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I’ve set up Template:Verify/sandbox for you to use. You can test it by writing: {{Template:Verify/sandbox}} with all the parameters you want. I’m still having trouble visualizing what you’re aiming for, but I’m happy to look at your example. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 22:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well, the first time I had the thought of using {{Verify}} on a Talk page was at [12] (use source mode to see the verify template), when I wanted to document conflicting information from various sources in order to figure out the best way to write it into the article, which I then did in edits at [13]. GreekApple123 (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

My workflow is described here, GreekApple123. (BigKrow and Wikiwide may also be interested.) Gryllida (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Project proposal for 2025

Latest comment: 1 month ago41 comments17 people in discussion

graph indicating historical trend. — width=300px

en.WN consistently struggles with low monthly publication rates and the problem is only getting worse. After analyzing the issue, I’ve documented my findings here: User:Michael.C.Wright/sandbox/The problem.

I propose we launch a structured project this year to boost our publication rate. Revitalizing en.WN is key to attracting more contributors, which could take many forms. For example, we could:

Devise and expand in-line markup tools that facilitate communication between authors and reviewers, such as {{verify}} and {{PhraseReview}}
Run writing competitions or themed events to encourage more article generation
Improve how reviewers collaborate and communicate.
Update the appearance of our Main page and published articles, to include:
- New version of social bookmarks[14]
- Include a byline for WN:OR
Update how we utilize Wikidata (Pharos?)
Wiki News Flash (voting articles up/down) (Pharos?)
Update and/or change the review process itself
- Are flagged revisions the way forward?[15]
Increase the number of active reviewers
Add ability to include video in WN:OR

This project would involve both authors and reviewers. Broad feedback and input are essential, as no single solution will fully address the issue—it will require multiple changes.

If there’s consensus to launch the project, I’ll create a central page to organize our efforts, similar to how we approached (or attempted to approach) the Wikinews talk:2024 Copyright license upgrade project. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 18:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC); edited 16:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Should we launch a project to revitalize Wikinews?

Questions and comments

I also have a proposal: creating a single guideline/tutorial page that covers all the key aspects an editor needs to know; at least the minimum criteria an article must meet to be published. This way, editors can find everything they need in one place in order to write a "sufficient" article. The page will be simple to understand and can include some "To Do" and "Not To Do" examples. Additionally, we could develop an Article Wizard (similar to WP) to make the article creation process easier and more convenient. This might help new editors to contribute without feeling overwhelmed or demotivated. Asked42 (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

That tutorial page can also include a section on "What to do if your article gets rejected" in different scenarios, along with a step by step guide on how to resolve the issues. Reviewers can then redirect the author to this page for additional guidance and help. Asked42 (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I really like the idea. Gryllida has talked about doing something similar to an article wizard[16] and has created a similar tool as a bot for IRC, which I have previewed once. It consisted of a series of prompts such as 'find two sources, read them, then summarize them in your own words.'

Having a tool that is more 'native' to the site would certainly be useful. The IRC bot required coping and pasting from IRC into Wikinews. It also requires users to use IRC, which is external and has its own learning curve. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 22:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Native to site I made this (docs) (source code). I got frustrated it does not highlight the page title in white background while the rest of the page is greyed out. Some style issue and I think it may be confusing for the user. cc Leaderboard. Regards, -- Gryllida (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Gryllida If I understand you correctly, you want the page title to not be part of the grayed-out background (i.e, it should be in the foreground and not the background)? Leaderboard (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes Gryllida (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure - let me ask this elsewhere and see if someone gets back to me. Leaderboard (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Gryllida If you're on the Wikimedia Community Discord, can you check https://discord.com/channels/221049808784326656/1336911892270153800/1336976343761424416 Leaderboard (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Suggest to add point: "Devise and expand in-line markup tools that facilitate communication between authors and reviewers, such as IRC". Some tool to schedule biweekly IRC meetups with logging meeting and taking meeting minutes. Gryllida (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
(I anticipate these can be spent editing articles collaboratively and clearing review queue at each meeting) Gryllida (talk) 03:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
To anyone reading this: do you see a "unsubscribe" button on each of the water coolers linked at Wikinews:Water cooler (I think there are about 5 subpages)? If it's not there, please consider clicking "subscribe"?? And ensuring you either login to the wiki at least once daily, or have the notifications delivered to email which is checked at least daily? (Replace "daily" with some indication of a regular check that is convenient to you). If you can only subscribe to one Water cooler, please subscribe to the "assistance" one. Please let me know how this goes, it would be greatly appreciated. :-) Thanks. Gryllida (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I have noticed that the feature Automatically subscribe to topics does not always function properly. On several occasions I have found that I was no longer subscribed to new discussions I started. This happened to me for all three of the discussions I started here: Talk:Ruling party wins election in Bermuda. I have since manually re-subscribed to all three discussions on that page. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
I have started a monthly challenge. The challenge home page can be found here: Wikinews:2025 Boost publication rate/Monthly top article. All published articles during the month are automatically entered. January winners have already been identified. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 18:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Comment: Even on WP today, trying to implement "traditional encyclopedia editorial room" practices would fail. English Wikipedia could not survive on new articles that went through the official Draft process. It's too slow, too much overhead, the role of reviewer is just inviting people to practice saing 'no'. I think to revive Wikinews you'll need more automation if you want to keep summarizing secondary coverage (high quality automated reviews and summaries do seem within reach), more of a focus on local/regional news, and on persistent beats; and more of a focus on OR. That's where I think WN has the most potential to improve on the existing state of the Web.

Wikipedias in most languages are fine places to summarize national / international news [at which point WN at best has a briefer, less complete version], and I don't think that's a great area for WN to host summaries. Really it's original regional coverage — of local happenings, of events and festivals and conferences — where WN can shine. Long ago I got press passes as a Wikinews editor; and lately I've helped with a few WikiPortraits events, which involves getting press passes to major events all around the world, to take photographs. The press-pass contacts at the events love it if people with passes were also writing up written summaries of the event... it's actually a bit of a challenge that we only take photos. So an event-focused beat on WN might attract people already at events to post articles. [I don't think the current Portraits photogs would be excited to produce news summaries here without a receptive audience among existing WN editors, but if there is enthusiasm and a more active pipeline in the future, it's an idea that could be revisited.] sj (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the thoughtful input — there’s a lot of good insight here. I’m especially interested in what we can start acting on now to build momentum. Of the proposals you mentioned — automation of the review process, local/regional focus, persistent beats, more OR, and event-based coverage — which do you think we should prioritize first?

And what would specific first steps look like to begin making progress in that direction? Any ideas for tools, workflows, or outreach that might help get things moving? —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Note

Hi, (I've left this message to everyone who indicated support below.) Here are a few ways to help out, as far as I could see, in no particular order:

write new articles by style guide and content guide
find news which happened today and share it on live chat or a news tip page
read drafts in Newsroom, especially those submitted for review, and edit them to make them more comprehensive or more current
read drafts in Newsroom, especially those that failed review recently, and address reviewer's comments quickly and re-submit for review
chat with new authors (of articles in Newsroom) and help them understand the key concepts
subscribe at Wikinews:Water cooler (there are 5 subforums, open each and click 'Subscribe' link at top - then keep a close eye on your Echo notifications) to help newcomers and help with editing articles when someone requests assistance
chat on live chat and help newcomers and reviewers with their review process
help with software development for authoring or reviewing articles, perhaps for the mobile platforms
chat with other contributors on audio or video chat
present notes about how Wikinews works at various conferences via audio and video communucations [as we don't have funds for travel at present] this can be linux, programming, journalistical, or wikimedia themed conferences
figure out how to get someone to do any of the above through a grant, sometimes google summer of code
find high school and university educators who would like to teach their class journalism by asking them to write articles for Wikinews (was done with in the past, and we have extension installed for marking students)
collaborate with Pharos on getting more news coverage of the New York City and adjacent areas
proofread, or read, Wikinews articles out loud for Audio Wikinews
make English Wikinews accounts on various social media like twitter, facebook, blue sky app (sp?), others [in consultation with someone on-wiki first] ensuring you're posting new news articles there with appropriate tags, moderate comments, and setup multiple moderators if possible and document which contributor is in charge of which social network account for Wikinews and how articles are being posted there

Please let me know which of these points you're most comfortable with, and/or would like to learn.

Which points would you like to contribute? Please name up to 3-5 points, if you like. Or suggest your own. :-)

I'm happy to connect with you and guide you in any of the above areas. Thanks, Gryllida (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would add

write articles about any conference or event or festival you are at. Make that a standard and easily templated / reviewed beat that lots of people contribute to.

sj (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Votes

I think we should, otherwise Wikinews will keep losing active users and eventually die out. Anonymous5324859 (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Support We should not give up on any project in the free knowledge ecosystem, and Wikinews is one such project. We should put forth an effort to save it. DraconicDark (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. BigKrow (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Support The world today has even more need of a strong Wikinews than it did 20 years ago, and now is the opportunity to innovate and catch up to serve that need.--Pharos (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Support I believe in this project so much. Lofi Gurl (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Support: I might not be very active here in terms of article writing, but I do believe these initiatives, especially the themed writing competition, could have a major impact. We could structure it similarly to the Monthly Photo Challenge on Commons. Additionally, we could maintain a project to recognize the most active contributors: such as the top five authors and reviewers from the previous month, and award them with badges, "thankyou" notes, or other forms of appreciation to keep them motivated. Asked42 (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Neutral Hi I think each of these ideas needs to be voted on separately and majority of them are not votable yet, i.e., are 'how?' and are not 'yes/no' questions. Gryllida (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

The yes/no question for current voting is; Should we launch a project to revitalize Wikinews? The proposal is: "[W]e launch a structured project this year to boost our publication rate."

In other words, we are voting on whether or not we want to coordinate our work here specifically to revitalize Wikinews by boosting our publication rate.

Once we decide we agree on the problem and agree to coordinate action by launching a project, we can start deciding what actions to be taken. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 18:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

FYI for everyone, from my perspective, such a project is perpetually on. (If fiction is to be believed, there is a saying among military pilots, "Don't think, just do.", which I remembered when reading this discussion. (When reading the above, I've decided to click 'Subscribe' at all water coolers; why isn't this on for all users by default, and why can't an admin subscribe or invite selected users to that (perhaps with their consent)?)) Gryllida (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Neutral I echo Gryllida's sentiment. Asking Wikinews members if they want to save Wikinews is going to result in "yes, we should definitely save Wikinews".

I personally think a lot of the core issue lies in the fact that we don't have enough reviewers for all that many articles to not go stale and there still isn't a functional pathway to learn how to become a reviewer. This means that a lot of people who want to write articles will find they're not published because they time out, which is definitely a huge negative pressure on activity. Do you want to invest time and effort into writing an article (as I did, putting several hours into an article, and I'm sure this has happened to a lot of other people here) only for it to be thrown in the metaphorical bin after 7 days because no-one was around to review it?

I feel the process to become a reviewer is designed to discourage people from applying and contributing more to the community, because there's no resource to learn the answers to the barrage of questions you'll inevitably receive. I know one of the reasons I'm not around here too much anymore is that I disagreed with the outcome of my reviewer application, and that by itself is fine, I'm comfortable disagreeing and then still editing. The issue lies that we don't have resources to effectively teach people how to review while having a massive reviewer shortage. I'm not here much because I have a major energy-limiting disability, and I cannot commit as much energy as I do into my articles without the decent chance they get reviewed. Ash Thawley (talk) (calendar) 00:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Asheiou, thank you for the feedback. It does help. And for what it's worth; it has been my experience that once one becomes a reviewer, there still is very little help in learning the ropes. You basically have to learn by doing. There is also our issue of "institutional knowledge" which isn't contained in our policies and guidelines, making it very difficult to learn effectively. The best one can do is to read through past conversations and hope to get an understanding of the goals and desired outcomes.

If you are still interested in becoming a reviewer, I will commit to helping you however I can. What helped me to learn the ropes was using {{Pre-review}} and trying to think like a reviewer. Having pre-reviews out there to point to in my request, I believe made it easier for me to demonstrate a willingness and ability to help others improve their articles, which is (in my opinion) the primary role of the reviewer.

Regarding your previous request for reviewer; it's unfortunate that you were caught in the middle of a difficult, complex situation. It feels like there’s some resistance to change, which I think is natural in any community. There may be a concern that the direction of the project could shift dramatically, leading to feelings of uncertainty about what might be lost. There’s also a great deal of respect for Pi zero and the significant role they played in shaping the current state of en.Wikinews, especially with the modern review process. I do wonder if part of the resistance is tied to the fear of drastically altering what many consider to be Pi zero's legacy. Change can be hard, and sometimes it’s difficult to balance respect for past work with the need to evolve.

Lastly, regarding the vote on the proposed project: to be successful, we need to collectively acknowledge the problem and take concrete, coordinated action to address it. Sticking to the same routines hasn’t worked for the past six—going on seven—years, as can be understood when reading some of the past conversations we've had along the very same lines as the one we are currently having. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your response. I'd love to actually be able to get things moving around here, so learning how to review would be good. The resistance to change is certainly something I've noticed, there's a strong "no"-culture, where change is to be avoided until it is proven positive. This isn't inherently a negative part of Wikinews, but when things are clearly falling apart, rejecting change isn't going to help.

I am currently stuck between about 15 different rocks and 15 different hard places thanks to the UK's amazing bureaucracy (2, 3), so that is eating up most of my energy at the moment, but I'll be around as much as I can afford without burning out. That'll most likely be more in {{pre-review}}ing than in writing articles, because I can't commit the energy to typing hundreds of words of my own at the moment.

In regards to "concrete (...) action", I do agree that something has to be done, but I think a proposal to establish proposals to eventually maybe get a 5% change is the way things have always been done around here, and it hasn't been working. Making the site look and function a bit better still doesn't tackle the fundamental issue that we don't have enough reviewers and any new author is promptly scared off by the fact that nothing is ever written down here (on a project dedicated to writing, nonetheless). Getting a lot of the policy and convention that's currently in about 4 peoples' heads into a nice format for new authors and potential reviewers has to be a simple first step, at least. Ash Thawley (talk) (calendar) 19:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

SupportI've read some smart words above. In a perfect world, I wish I had to time to create an 'Academy' for new reporters and reviewers, but alas -- life gets in the way. It is my closely held belief that we must ALWAYS take steps to remind one another:We try to function as a news organization here. But, further: I think our larger use of FB et al. could use a good vitamin shot! Social media should feed INTO THIS and THIS should feed into social media.--Bddpaux (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Support I'm a passionate believer in curated neutral news. I've put forth a three-points-plan below that can be implemented as soon as tomorrow. Kenneth Kho (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Support While I am pretty new here, it seems quite clear from the links I've seen (and from my experience trying to get an article reviewed here) that this project isn't really doing very well...there's little sense in continuing with something that clearly isn't working very well. AnInfiniteInfinity (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Comment Gryllida has a point that not all of these are yes/no comments, but I think most of them are reasonably doable and I like the energy. I think we need to either lose the idea of Wikinews-as-writing-school and focus on retaining skilled drafters (more doable) or completely embrace the idea of Wikinews-as-writing-school and focus on attracting composition learners (radical change). Trying to do both is part of why we have a problem. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I was going to archive this discussion with the note that without more active reviewers and admin involved in this project, it is dead on arrival. However, given that people are slowly commenting here gives me hope.

And again to clarify, the proposal is Should we launch a project to revitalize Wikinews? The bullet points were ideas for such a project. The idea was to first see if enough people want to organize our efforts towards revitalizing Wikinews, i.e., increasing participation in article writing and reviewing, our core function.

I think we need to either lose the idea of Wikinews-as-writing-school... I agree. Without more active reviewers who publish quality news articles, we can't sell that anyway.

...focus on attracting composition learners (radical change) What are some ideas you have for doing this? —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'd say our big problems is that we need to give people something that professional news doesn't. Right now, we're at least two days delayed from other sources, and we don't do a better job. Since we don't use paywalled sources, we're not giving people access to information they couldn't get themselves. I don't have a ready answer.

This is part of the reason why, even though I don't love the idea, "completely rebrand Wikinews as a writing school" isn't completely off my table. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think microdata and interlinking could be a point of difference, really leaning in USP of being an intergral part of the web, not just somewhere people go to, for example for recent cable car disaster the co-ordinates of where it happened will help our artical appear when people are searching for it elsewhere and in the "bigger picture" help people make fact/data driven decisions about the news the reading. To this edit I have copied in the relevant module for co-ordinates Back ache (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Support Intergrating with Wikidata is key as it allows the reader to dig further into an artical and intergrates the artical with the way search engines work, for example, with the artical about the cable car disaster I added its link to the wikidata artical of the cablecar in question. Back ache (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thanks for the note. I am not a Wikidata user. Is there an utility which can be used to receive suggestions of related Wikidata items? Does Wikidata have a category for 'recent events'? Gryllida (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I Support that project in principle, though like others above I think some of the proposals require more than straightforward yes/no answers, and it would be better to split them into their own sections, with a short description of each proposal. As regards Gryllida's suggestions above, these are also good and here is another one: watchlist WN:Requested articles and respond promptly to new requests there (even if it's only to decline them). Dsuke1998 AEOS (talk) 02:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I wrote Wikinews:Watching pages as an unofficial recommmendation. Perhaps add any other tips there. Gryllida (talk) 03:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Audio news

Latest comment: 30 days ago12 comments6 people in discussion

In interests of increasing contributors, I am thinking of audio news as a podcast. Like this but cut out the analysis bit as it is opinionated. Currently thinking of reading articles out loud to an account in Spotify.

Is this a good idea from your perspective?
Who is interested to volunteer to sign up as readers and proofreaders (listen to recording to check)?
Is Spotify OK?
Where else - what other platforms?
What text to add before and after each audio clup? w:librivox has a short sentence at each clip. So for Wikinews it could be 'Wikinews is a citizen journalism site that anyone can edit and report news at. Today report is: [title]. [content follows here]. The end.' or some other? [Note: I haven't yet listened to past audio clips, so I don't know what they say]

See also: Audio (inactive after 2023 I think).

Regards, Gryllida (talk) 09:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

This brings back some memories. I remember doing Audio Wikinews Briefs back in 2010. It was a shame they went away.

To the questions put forth;

I do think this is a good idea, broadly speaking.
At the moment I'd be available most days to either read or to check the recording.
I have no problem with Wikinews content going on Spotify.
We should find as many platforms to post audio news to as possible. I'm not familiar with many other podcast platforms. Apple Podcasts and YouTube are the ones I tend to use. We should also post the clips to Wikimedia Commons (seeing as it would be Wikinews content).
I'm not entirely sure what to write here. I'm thinking I might draft something up later and see how it goes.

RockerballAustralia contribs 23:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you :-) I will send you a recording. Is wn-reporters email OK, are you checking it these days? Gryllida (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I do still check that address on occasion, perhaps not as often as I used too. Send the recording through. RockerballAustralia contribs 05:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

w:RSS is the most important thing in podcasting. Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can we use speech synthesizers or AI text-to-speech tools to generate audio versions of Wikinews articles? I noticed that Commons has a tool for creating audio versions of Wikipedia articles; Maybe we can use that? Asked42 (talk) 09:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't see any reason we couldn't. We just need to make sure the resultant audio matches the text input, i.e., no added hallucinations. Basically following WN:AI. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 13:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can you make one test version, perhaps for one article, please, @Asked42? Gryllida (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Gryllida: I tried the SoniTranslate tool available here on Hugging Face. But, after several attempts using different approaches, I couldn't get a satisfactory audio version. The audio generated sounded too artificial and often ignored punctuation, failing to include pauses between sentences and paragraphs. That said, you're welcome to give it a try yourself. Asked42 (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Here is an example audio version of the article Los Angeles Police release body cam footage of armed standoff between officers and wife of Weezer bassist, created using the tool.

-- Asked42 (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

It sounds weird because same voice for quote and for the text. Can this be fixed? Just one voice for all text and one voice for all quotes would do. In more complex scenarios when we know quote was female, would need two different female voices, one for text and one for quote. Gryllida (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Gryllida After all, it's just a tool. But I need to find more tools for it. Md Mobashir Hossain (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Three-Points-Plan to Jumpstart Wikinews

Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments3 people in discussion

This is the minimum viable prototype for the public to be interested to rely on Wikinews, this has been well received in Wikipedia, and in the TLDR News YouTube franchise for those who watch it.

1. Presume Wikipedia's Current events as news and write about all the news within one day.

2. Stubs with a thumbnail and two sources are better than nothing, suspend the rest of peer review processes, and setup an autopatrolled permission for experienced editors to bypass peer review.

3. Main Page is to contain only events in the past seven days (sectioned similar to Wikipedia's Current events), each event is complete with the title (clickable), thumbnail, lead paragraph, and two citations.

I believe this bold plan is very clear and straightforward to implement with sufficient support, and without any obvious drawback at least for a few while. Kenneth Kho (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi

1 ok, please go ahead

1 i can write it for some events within my scope - how do i get notifications of new events posted there - which page do i subscribe?

2 i can publish this straight away no problem

2 list of candidates?

3 oppose citations in any form, as a statement is either attributed or supported by multiple sources?

Regards, Gryllida (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I like this approach (with gry's addendum). Thanks @Kenneth Kho: at the least there should be stubs for what makes it to the WP portal, and a shared sense of the sources appropriate to reference on each Project. Though as with Wikipedia there can be ongoing events that persist for a long time. sj (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

That's right. In wikipedia ongoing event gets added to same article e.g a three years long war. At Wikinews an article is published about a recent event and stays about it; further developments are published as separate stories. That is how news workflow is different from how Wikipedia does it. Gryllida (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Kenneth Kho

To fullfill item 1, i.e., write about a news event within 1 day, I have devised a group of contributors who can make revisions to article quickly by request. I would like to invite you to join this group.

Then you'll get 'Minor revision requested' or 'Major revision requested' notifications in Echo (top right corner of the page) when someone requests an article edit.

This contribution -- with such edits potentially taking only 3-5 minutes each -- would help a lot to get the articles written and published faster, as the news story reviewer isn't disqualified from reviewing by making a substantial edit to article content.

This is particularly fruitful to be involved into this if you're often logged into the wiki (not necessarily Wikinews, i.e. Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons would work equally well, as Wikinews notifications get delivered to all sister wikis) and reading the notifications on it, and have time to make the edits. If you agree, I will add you to the list at the {{pingrr}} page. What do you think? Gryllida (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Reviewers self-sighting within 24 hours

Latest comment: 1 month ago9 comments3 people in discussion

I propose establishing a standard practice allowing reviewers to self-sight their own changes to articles within 24 hours of publication.

Reviewers are already trusted to publish full articles independently. However, post-publication edits—often minor—are typically not self-sighted, requiring a second reviewer to sight them.

Given our ongoing shortage of reviewer time, this is inefficient and can result in missed edits, occasionally leading to avoidable corrections.

Edits that may be controversial can reasonably remain unsighted, but routine, uncontroversial changes made within 24 hours should be self-sighted. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 20:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't agree with allowing to self sight minor changes. This may cause issues. I'd suggest against self-sighting anything that visually changes the article (like changes of verb tense or removing a repeated word or altering punctuation). Gryllida (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

What is the rationale for allowing reviewers to self-sight during the review process, but requiring a second reviewer for minor changes within 24 hours of publication? What risk does this protect against, given that reviewers are already trusted to make similar minor edits during review?

If the change simply corrects an oversight by the original reviewer, why should it require three separate review actions to address? —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 21:07, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would further add that all unsighted changes must be reconciled by an admin once edit protected (which is by policy after 24 hours). Requiring so many reviewer actions before archival will likely increase the amount of archival work required per article. There are currently 91 pending changes that need to be sighted or rejected. Many, possibly most require an admin due to post-publication protection. Making it common practice for more reviewers to self-sight minor corrections would certainly help reduce the admin work (that isn't being done on a regular basis already). —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 21:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

On the other side, self sighting changes to categories would be fine, I think. I have found those to be a pain. Why aren't they all protected against edits by users who aren't autoconfirmed? Can this be configured per namespace? Gryllida (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, not behind this one. Reviewer status does not mean someone is magically an error-free person. Reviewers can and should be drafters as well, but let another reviewer check their sources and work. Agree that this should not apply to minor changes, like cat changes and typo fixes. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I should have been clearer in my original proposal. I’m suggesting that reviewers should more consistently self-sight additional reviewer actions on a published page—provided those actions wouldn’t otherwise disqualify them as a reviewer, and are made within 24 hours of publication. For example, if Reviewer A misses something during review, Reviewer B should be able to correct it and self-sight the change.

These are actions we already trust reviewers to take independently during a full review. This does not include adding sources, significantly expanding the article, or making any other edits that would compromise reviewer eligibility.

While some reviewers already do this in practice, inconsistency—especially during periods of limited reviewer activity—can lead to a buildup of unsighted changes. These often become convoluted and difficult to reconcile.

This isn’t to suggest that reviewers are infallible—only that we should adopt a consistent and practical approach to handling post-publication corrections. I’ve also seen cases where a reviewer inserted incorrect information into an article I wrote, which later had to be corrected and sighted—so mistakes can happen on either side. That said, this isn’t a hill I’m prepared to die on; I simply think it’s worth considering for the sake of clarity and workflow. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 16:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Okie-dokie. That sounds like no big deal. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

What I've found myself doing instead is making minor edits before publishing, as then I can fix any outstanding minor issues. In that case the minor edits can include things like changing passive voice to active voice, adding wikilinks, changing the order of sentences. I try to avoid doing this repeatedly for the same user though so if a user makes the same issue repeatedly then effort is undertaken to clarify why this is needed and what edits were required to publish, and I continue to track how they do it in their future submissions.

Further, to make it easier to request ''major'' edits in case they are required, I made template {{pingrr}}, which has usage documentation. I hope it will help to get articles fixed by request much quicker. This is a group of users who are interested to get notified of new requests of article revisions either before or after publishing, can respond quickly, including searching for sources or rewriting content, digging for new information, etc. If you would like to be a part of this group of users, simply add your name to the template at the end of its source after the "noinclude" block, and ensure you login to the wiki 2-3 times a day to check your notifications.

Thank you very much, and please let me know if you have any suggestions what else needs to be done or changed in how I or otherwise everyone is doing things. Gryllida (talk) 06:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Publicizing reviewership request Darkfrog24

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is this still where we request reviewership or has it changed? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have transcluded your nomination into the Requests for Reviewer section. -- Asked42 (talk) 06:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can we make a help for making new article

Latest comment: 1 month ago12 comments4 people in discussion

Hello, Can we make a New Help here. It will help us to contribute. Md Mobashir Hossain (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Md Mobashir Hossain do you mean to create a new article wizard for Wikinews, like there is for Wikipedia? Gryllida (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Gryllida Yeah, Something like this. Md Mobashir Hossain (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

We do have this: Wikinews:Writing an article. As for an interactive wizard, we don’t have one yet. Asked42 has hinted at interest in building one—and given their strong track record with useful tools, your request might be the nudge that highlights just how valuable such a tool could be. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 16:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Michael.C.Wright Oh! It is great but we can make this more stronger and thanks to @Asked42! Md Mobashir Hossain (talk) 04:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean by "make this more stronger?" We do need to update a lot of our documentation and help pages so your feedback as a relatively new author could be helpful. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 13:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Michael.C.Wright I believe that anything is not best. We can make it more powerful and stronger and also helpful for new authors. Md Mobashir Hossain (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome and encouraged to recommend exact changes on the talk page. Doing so may help others evaluate your request for adminship as well. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Michael.C.Wright Hey, I am talking about Template:New page! Not about the rules and regulation. Md Mobashir Hossain (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

My response remains the same: you're encouraged to use the talk page to offer specific suggestions for improvement. As a newer editor with fresh eyes and less exposure to the institutional habits that can form over time, your perspective could be especially valuable. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 18:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello

For article guide I wanted mw:Extension:GuidedTour, but my attempt

source: https://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Guidedtour-tour-gryllidatest1.js

...caused the following result:

https://test.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gryllida&tour=gryllidatest1

Here, after clicking 'next', i wanted it to point to the page title with a note like 'this is the headline, it is in present tense, active voice, bla bla'. but it is confusing. it does not have headline with white background and rest of page with greyed out. instead, it has whole page greyed out. i personally find this very confusing. does @Asked42 or @Leaderboard or @Pppery possibly have any idea how to overcome this issue? Gryllida (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

No idea, sorry. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Some ideas

Latest comment: 22 days ago89 comments4 people in discussion

I mostly have experience in Wikipedia, and am still very new at Wikinews. But I wanted to share some of my ideas on improving Wikinews, particularly drawing from my Wikipedia experience. I will keep updating this as I learn about Wikinews:

I have given some ideas on the value of inline citations (at least during the review process) in an above discussion.
Vandalism seems like a problem this site is not equipped to rapidly handle at the moment. Perhaps there could be a way to expedite the process by allowing trusted users to effect 1-day bans on suspected vandals, which could then promptly be followed by a hearing process to determine the validity of the vandalism charge. There should also be a way to automatically undo all edits done by a user once they are determined to be a vandal.
I think having something akin to Wikipedia's draftspace might be wise, as it would allow for a more free and focused creation of new/developing articles. It would also help to visually distinguish between developing articles and published articles when examining the URL or title of an article.

News feed for readers

1. I think readers should be able to create their own curated news feed when accessing Wikinews. This could be akin to the watchlist that editors and reviewers use. I am not sure if it ought to be required for readers to create an account to set up a news feed, or if there is an informal way to enable such a thing using browser cookies, but either way I think this would greatly help in making Wikinews content more relevant and easy to find.

2. Idea above for how such a news feed could involve Wikinews categories.

GreekApple123 (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I like your ideas and support their direction. I believe Wikinews is either in an existential crisis or its final chapter. Without major changes, we remain largely irrelevant. We need new voices and fresh ideas to move forward.

...which could then promptly be followed by a hearing process... Unfortunately, we don’t have enough active admins to handle routine vandalism, let alone support a formal hearing process. That’s why the project has opted into global sysops. Fortunately, our use of Flagged Revisions and relatively fast article protection help minimize the impact and visibility of vandalism.

I think there should be some way to link categories together in a way where readers can receive a #News feed for readers of curated content that is particularly relevant to them. I agree. We do have RSS feeds, but a tool that lets users customize by category—or even follow specific contributors—could be a great step forward. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 16:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

...a tool that lets users customize by category—or even follow specific contributors—could be a great step forward. I think the scope of possibility is quite significant here for sure. For example, if a reader wants to know about Africa and the United States, it is logical that they would be particularly interested in knowing about African-Americans. So as the reader selects the categories they want to be subscribed to, certain subcategories can become 'prioritized' over others depending on how many of the parent categories they fall under. This will also increase the importance of correct categorization and hierarchization of categories, as well as figuring out how to visually show all of these linkages and give the reader more latitude in deciding what to opt into. GreekApple123 (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

We can definitely work on creating a tool to achieve that, something that lets users query Wikinews based on specific conditions. For example, if someone wants to see articles related to "United States, Politics, and from January 2025 to present", the tool would display matching articles that meet those criteria.

I'm not sure whether it would be technically possible to allow users to subscribe to such queries (like getting notifications or updates), but it might be possible to do something similar using the watchlist or related mechanisms. It's definitely something we could explore.

I'd love to work on this, though I'm not sure when I'll be able to give it proper time. Asked42 (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Part of the utility of such a tool will also be for editors and article-requesters. For example, being able to quickly grab stats on how many articles have been written pertaining to earthquakes in Sudan in the last 5 years or something like that, and then being able to figure out how to improve output and balance in coverage across all topics.

I'm not sure whether it would be technically possible to allow users to subscribe to such queries (like getting notifications or updates), but it might be possible to do something similar using the watchlist or related mechanisms. I suspect something like the Special:RecentChanges pages might work. GreekApple123 (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Other than categories, perhaps links or even just general searchable text could be used for the query conditions. So, being able to search for all Wikinews articles which link to a particular Wikipedia article or which the search engine detects discussing a certain theme. GreekApple123 (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

being able to search for all Wikinews articles which link to a particular Wikipedia article... That sounds good. I wonder if Wikidata could be leveraged. Our application of wikidata to articles is inconsistent, but if it becomes useful, that could change I imagine. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 23:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I could even see the data regarding reader subscriptions factoring into editing policy: categories that receive more interest from readers should be prioritized by Wikinewsies. GreekApple123 (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

It looks like we have something meant for pulling pages from intersections of categories at Wikinews:DynamicPageList and its apparent successor DynamicPageList3. GreekApple123 (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I personally like DPL and use it on my User:Michael.C.Wright/maintenance page. You should be aware of two things: 1. Our installation of it is limited (I've worked with it on other non-Mediawiki Wiki's and it can be powerful). 2. There is this old thread about DPL that we should be aware of. TLDR: "DPL is not supported and was not designed to cope with large numbers of new pages."

Unless you or someone else can find that it is now supported (someone previously mentioned they thought it was) and the identified problems are corrected, I don't think its a good idea to rely on it heavily. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 13:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is there a way to leverage the technology behind Template:Topic cat then? Also, I think your idea above of leveraging Wikidata should perhaps first be tested out by modifying Template:Topic cat so that if provided a Wikidata link, it can then auto-populate all sister links (Wikiversity, Wikisource, etc.) GreekApple123 (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

3. There has to be some way to assign priority-based hierarchy and greater categorization to content on the Main Page. If there are four articles about some simple local stuff and one article about some global crisis, the global article should rise to the top regardless of recency. GreekApple123 (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi @GreekApple123

We could get some page assessment extension installed.
At Wikipedia it includes a article scale for 'class' and 'importance'. If it was adapted for Wikinews, it'd need to include 'freshness' criteria instead.
I'd do "class=date of event in UTC" and "importance = [D] Global or Local or Very Local" with practically any note like 'written by newcomer' or 'original reporting' or 'breaking news'. This is basically a custom note which may include any information you like to be visible about the article urgency or priority status. This would provide a benefit of having a Newsroom-like page which lists date of event, not date a story was submitted for review or started. The [D] means it's developing without specific flagged issues, and [R] could mean it is submitted for review and [I] could mean it has specific issues that require fixing.
https://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PageAssessments?project=Main&namespace=0&page_title= is an example. To play around with it, go to the talk pages of these articles and edit the assessment tag there.
Updating the assessment tag is a royal pain. Wikipedia has comfy scripts for doing it. They could be tested here.
It doesn't matter 'WikiProject name', at small news site this could be just 'News' until the day it gets bigger.

Please let me know if you think this would be useful. Then I can open a section in technical water cooler to obtain consensus for the extension installation. Gryllida (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Very useful. It might be worth having some kind of ability to collate the parameter data for each article in order to create more unique and contextual displays, perhaps with user preferences also playing a role; for example, maybe if there have been too many high-importance articles recently, a low-importance article could sneak through, or users could select which level they want most of the articles to show up in their feed. GreekApple123 (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Would you like to repost that to water cooler technical, with wikilink to the PageAssessments extension? I would vote for it. Gryllida (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I do not know enough technical data of the extension or even the general implementation of this proposal to be the main backer/representative for it, sorry. I am guessing a post to the technical page should be made only by more technically competent folks, with someone like me just commenting or requesting things. That being said, I would support pretty much any initiative which goes in the direction we discussed, and let me know if my understanding is wrong. GreekApple123 (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

RSS feed proposals

This subsection has been branched out to support discussion on the viability of RSS for news feed purposes

Hi @GreekApple123, at a category page there is an RSS feed. See Category:Italy and rss feed URL. Would this work well for you (and perhaps for other users)? If not, then why, and how could it be improved? Gryllida (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

i added rssfeed template and provided example in previous section Gryllida (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

(This line copied from higher section): Hi @GreekApple123. Item 2 is doable. (from:

code). Supports up to 5 categories for intersection. This sounds great. I think now some things to look at are:

Is there a better, more convenient way than RSS?
If RSS is best for now, then how can we make it easier for readers to learn and use it? Should we put up videos or links on the main page helping readers with it?
Can RSS support editors, reviewers, and article-requesters in any way?

GreekApple123 (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

haven't found a more convenient way than rss. as it needs that the user does not need to signup for account on a new service. (option one is rss)

also: there is a Newsletter extension that sends Echo notifications to users, so subscription lists could be made for requested topics or topic intersections. a request to install that extension was added to the technical water cooler recently and is open for votes. this is option number two. (echo notifications through wiki)

option three is by following english wikinews in social media. it's been a bit dead recently as nobody posts there much.

rss could be used to notify of new additions to Disputed, Developing, or Review categories. this could help to get you involved in editing of new draft stories.

previously i wrote 'Welcome a bit' which inserted talk page messages about each new article in a picked category. most users ended up getting flooded with those, and not reading their talk page. so i am not running that software anymore. if there is interest to try it out, i'm happy to setup it again. User:Gryllida/welcome_a_bit has documentation and link to source code.

please let me know what other options you would like to explore. Gryllida (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Following specific contributors

(This section builds off of Michael.C.Wright's idea to allow readers to follow output from specific contributors)

1. Maybe each contributor can indicate certain categories (including regions) that they are focused on, and then readers could be given a shortlist of categories with local contributors that they can follow? GreekApple123 (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

2. Maybe contributors could offer 'content streams'/'production pipelines' that readers could follow? For example, an editor might have an interest in delivering weekly content around one or two multi-category themes (like 'Video games in Paris' or 'Wine-sipping in the Amazon'), with articles they write tagged into those particular 'streams', or they might agree to keep track of certain evolving/future events (as is made somewhat possible through Wikinews:Calendar), with readers able to track any updates in real-time. GreekApple123 (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Chronology

Maybe there could be some kind of basic template or script which can automatically update the date of a developing article to the most recent day, as well as update any time-related verbiage. So if an article is written on Tuesday about an event on Tuesday, there could be a way to tag certain words like "today" in a sentence like "Today, the event happened..." so that if a few days pass before the article is published, those words get updated to "yesterday", "day before yesterday", or "[insert date]" as needed. This would also encourage new writers to think more consciously about writing in a present-focused manner and tag events with a more specific date and time, which can perhaps assist in collaboration as well. GreekApple123 (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
I’m not sure this is the best use of our energy right now. I’d prefer we focus on more immediate needs and higher-impact issues. In my view, the reviewer bottleneck is our most serious challenge—nothing gets published without a reviewer, and while the process is rigorous and effective when followed, it’s also slow and cumbersome. I see that as our top priority. That said, I know others disagree, sometimes strongly, and I’m genuinely interested in how newer contributors like yourself see it. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
While I do see the reviewer bottleneck is important, I think it's important to analyze the structural issues which are making it difficult for reviewers to effectively and quickly collaborate, and for editors to establish their content in a way that is more trustworthy and accurate even prior to review. That's why instead of suggesting ways to get more reviewers, I first want to look into ways to make the editing and review process faster and more collaborative. I don't mean to suggest that all of my ideas are top-priority by any means, just that I think it may be more productive to think structurally and comprehensively; I say this particularly because from my limited understanding, it seems that the reviewer bottleneck issues have been going on for years and are unlikely to be fixed soon without broader thinking and/or other things getting improved first.

That being said, I'd be happy to also discuss ideas for fixing the reviewer bottleneck issue itself, and maybe we can have a section for that. GreekApple123 (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ideally an article is less than seven days old, and 'this {Day of week}' references are OK to use. Gryllida (talk) 11:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think things are more nuanced than that. For example, I was just working on an article which had been written on Saturday, and at one point the article discusses something that happened on Wednesday. Well, today it's Wednesday in that part of the world, so I had to go in and change the verbiage around the event on Wednesday to say that it happened "last Wednesday". This is the kind of thing that could be automatically handled by a template and application of tags. GreekApple123 (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Huh yeah, the template would have a lot of guesswork to do. It'd be heaps easier if the newcomers needed less work and stories were fresher in the first place. Gryllida (talk) 11:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Connecting to the past

I think there could be occasional feature-style articles which could cover some past events (sort like a "Blast from the Past" theme).
Because of the lack of timely reviews and the number of developing articles that go stale despite having excellent content, I would like to propose creating a secondary queue of published articles that are more than a week old. This would be a queue which would be far below the primary queue from the perspective of readers and Wikinewsies, and perhaps it could be used for giving new writers some practice in developing articles where there is a lot less pressure to deliver a high-quality product to the main Wikinews audience. Since this secondary queue would be less important and timely, it could also serve as a place to experiment on things that are difficult to pull off in the time-constrained environment that writing Wikinews articles usually takes place in. GreekApple123 (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
One potential benefit of belatedly writing content about the past is that when you write an article about some related event later on, you are more likely to be able to link to a Wikinews article about the related previous event, as opposed to having to link to/depend on Wikipedia everytime. GreekApple123 (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Some kind of 'Timeline' articles/categories/templates might be possible, exploring a series of events and providing links to individual Wikinews/Wikipedia entries in the timeline. GreekApple123 (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
in wikipedia you can edit articles about old 'news', via w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Current events for example. Gryllida (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

p.s. doing it here would reduce amount of proper, current, news being worked on, i believe, so i suggest to do it elsewhere Gryllida (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Live content

I think part of what could make Wikinews far more relevant would be the ability to support some kind of live or semi-frequently updated content.

Part of enabling this would be to have specialized templates for certain types of events, such as a live scoreboard template for sports events, or an updatable seat distribution chart for elections. These could be deployed within articles or perhaps as 'add-ons' that readers could separately view. GreekApple123 (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
I find it kind of bizarre overall that Wikipedia allows for more live updating of content than Wikinews, since a Wikipedia article can, for example, be edited to reflect someone's death, while a Wikinews article, if it is more than 24 hours old, can not mention that one of the people mentioned in the story has recently passed away. GreekApple123 (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm not opposed to the idea, but I think it's worth framing the conversation in terms of what makes Wikinews distinct from Wikipedia. There's already an argument to be made that Wikipedia can serve as a replacement for certain types of "news coverage." Since our early days, Wikinews has held to the idea that articles should serve as a snapshot in time. I believe there's still value in that.

Part of what makes Wikinews articles useful—especially when revisited years later—is that they show how events were understood at the time, without being revised to fit newer contexts or interpretations. That’s a key difference from Wikipedia, which is designed to reflect the current state of knowledge.

News reporting isn’t the same as encyclopedic documentation. An article written before the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, shouldn’t be retroactively shaped by what we’ve learned since. Preserving the original framing helps maintain the historical integrity of the reporting. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 22:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps one way to contextually deal with this is to have different timestamped versions of a news article that a reader can scroll through as an interactive timeline? GreekApple123 (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Looking to the future

Maybe there could be a calendar keeping track of upcoming events, such as national festivals and sports events, so that writers have more article ideas to work on? There could be priority given to certain important events, such as elections and economy-related events. GreekApple123 (talk) 01:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Wikinews:Calendar? Gryllida (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Maybe a workflow could be set up through something like this calendar. For example, maybe a couple of editors and reviewers agree that they will all commit some amount of time to working on an article/topic/category during a specific timeframe, guaranteeing a certain number of hours/attempts in editing and reviewing the article. This seems more rational than everyone just randomly starting articles at different points in time and hoping others will join their effort quickly enough. GreekApple123 (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Part of utilizing the calendar should maybe also include a week-by-week review of the articles that are in the pipeline and being worked on, in terms of how they are evaluated, reviewed, edited, etc. The project should set itself up in such a way that even the behind-the-scenes story of editing and writing decisions can be built up into institutional knowledge over time, and everyone knows where each other stands in terms of what they need to improve on for the next week of work. Even articles that failed to get published should be part of this somehow, in terms of maximizing the knowledge gained from time otherwise wasted. GreekApple123 (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Improvements to templates

1. I think there ought to be some kind of footnote capability here, similar to Wikipedia's w:Template:Efn.

2. Template:Needsupdate or something like it seems like it could be very useful, but it should include the ability to add a comment stating what needs to be updated or which new piece of information has come to light. GreekApple123 (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

We have {{tasks}}, which is also used by the EasyPeerReview tool. {{tasks}} covers both "Edit to avoid deletion" and "Refocus on a news event." This makes {{Needsupdate}} redundant. Our {{Stale}} template also overlaps with Needsupdate. For consistency and simplicity, I think it's better to stick with the Tasks and Stale templates. I think Needsupdate should be marked as a Category:Deprecated templates and mothballed. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

3. There probably could be a use for a template which allows us to see informal assessments from different reviewers of different sections of a developing article. So suppose you could see that a certain paragraph has received 3 thumbs up because it was considered to be written well or has particularly good sourcing, or something like that. GreekApple123 (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi @GreekApple123

1. For now footnotable material belongs either phrased in text, or on talk page, or as inline comment not visible to reader.

2. This template is used in developing articles, not in published articles. I added "text" parameter to it. Please have a look. If this has a syntax error, either fix it or ask me to fix it. Gryllida (talk) 11:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The "text" parameter is helpful, but can you make it so that the text shows up on its own separate line, and is perhaps in a bigger font? Right now, if I type something into the text field, when I preview, it just looks like the text has been written as part of the overall warning in the template, rather than being a clear and unique guidance on its own. GreekApple123 (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

done Gryllida (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have gone ahead and made the text parameter output bigger font, thanks. GreekApple123 (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

awesome Gryllida (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

3. In an ideal world, yes. In real world, one reviewer is expected to fully finish a review. Perhaps ask at the MediaWiki.org site whether there is such wiki extension. Gryllida (talk) 11:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

3a. Personally I would be very happy if a message at talk page could have status changes like 'thumbs up' 'i am working on it' 'done', it would help a lot with communication. Gryllida (talk) 11:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

There probably could be a use for a template which allows us to see informal assessments from different reviewers of different sections of a developing article. @GreekApple123, we do have {{Pre-review}}, which is intended to provide an informal analysis of an article’s state. The main concern others raise about non-reviewers using it is that there's no clear way to know whether the person understands our policies, guidelines, and norms. Though we like to talk about 'reputation' in other contexts, just for some reason not in this one.

That said, I still think informal input can be valuable—especially for helping to develop new reviewers. In a collaborative environment where people aren’t sniping at each other, this kind of feedback can work well. Most adults can tell when their work has genuinely been improved.

{{Pre-review}} could be scrapped in favor of a more-suitable, nimble tool. I wrote it to loosely emulate the review process. However, given the aggressive resistance to anything that adds content, "clutter," or draft mark-up, I'm not hopeful we could make much progress on this without a major shift in culture.

All of that to say I agree with the direction you're going with this recommendation and would back something that might move the needle. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 19:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think the pre-review option is great, and while I agree that even more nimble and modular options should be developed, I wouldn't scrap the pre-review template itself.

However, given the aggressive resistance to anything that adds content, "clutter," or draft mark-up, I'm not hopeful we could make much progress on this without a major shift in culture. This does seem like an issue at the moment. Maybe there can be some way to create a script which just hides any type of draft mark-up for reviewers like Gryllida, and then re-inserts them after those reviewers have done their thing. But overall, we can't stop progress in being able to collaborate modularly while invoking the full set of technological content-creating possibilities just because some want to do it all on their own with less tools at their disposal. GreekApple123 (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm concerned about the effort a user requires to add this markup while a reviewer continues to check all sources anyway. I've seen edge cases when I've been stumped by where a particular sentence came from, but they've been so rare that just asking someone to help me once in a blue moon is more helpful than asking to reference everything every time. Gryllida (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

i do instead:

==RR: rename page and add location==

Hi @NickOfAuthor (or multiple contributors) {{subst:pingrr}}

1) change headline to active voice

2) add location in first paragraph // [[WN:IP]]

thanks, --~~~~

this has same effect as 1. it tags multiple people 2. it contains list of actionable items. it has drawback that it does not have criteria like for a reviewer (copyright, freshness, npov, verifiability, style). i figured i can remember those anyway and it's more important to type some specific request quickly. maybe if these two workflows are merged, the result could be better than either of the two existing options. Gryllida (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

4. Maybe there could be something similar to {{Pre-review}}, but which goes on the Talk page and allows editors to describe how their article fills out the essential elements of a Wikinews article i.e. explaining which parts of the article correspond to the 5Ws+H, etc. Something like this could be implemented in a checklist/percentage style, allowing reviewers to indicate which parts of the article conform and how much progress is required to be published, in a more objective and standard manner. GreekApple123 (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

That is why the review fredback textbox is above the article, allowing to easily copy paste and then annotate quotes from the article into revoew feedback. Gryllida (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I also have a script, which takes a particular phrase ( and provides a spacefor a comment). This could be used to deface the draft, switch to source editing, copy the source, and then paste into review feedback. Hqvent needed it but maybe someone else finds it useful. As far as I know it is in my global commons.js. Gryllida (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think {{PhraseReview}} offers this functionality as well. GreekApple123 (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

GreekApple123, are you imagining this as a tool used before a review is requested, as something that helps contributors assess and demonstrate how close their draft is to meeting the 5Ws+H and other core standards?

If so, I think this could be a valuable feature within a broader article-generation wizard, something Asked42 has previously expressed interest in developing. The wizard could walk contributors through a structured series of prompts based on the WN:5Ws, tagging each response to show how the article satisfies each element. As the draft takes shape, the tool could indicate how complete the article is relative to those foundational criteria.

Having this markup embedded directly in the draft would help maintain our standards while reducing duplication of effort, removing the need for contributors to recreate that assessment separately on the Talk page. That could make the process more intuitive while reinforcing key expectations about what a publishable article should contain. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 00:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, pretty much. Such a feature should allow reviewers and other editors to pitch in resources and ideas around how they would like the article to better meet the criteria, so that's why I mentioned it as possibly a "checklist/percentage" type of thing. Conversely, I suppose that this kind of feature would also allow for a more rapid 'disqualification' of certain topics from being turned into articles, which also helps save time. GreekApple123 (talk) 01:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

An article creation wizard should probably involve AI at some point. It is possible to have AI do things according to standardized parameters, so perhaps Wikinews could develop a prompt that could be fed into something like ChatGPT along with story-related information, having the AI then output the information as a Wikinews-style article/text. GreekApple123 (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I’m beginning to question whether an article generation wizard might oversimplify article creation, especially given our ongoing challenges with plagiarism, copyright violations, unsupported statements, and analysis/interpretation. By simplifying the process, we risk neglecting the need for contributors to develop the skills essential for complying with our policies and guidelines.

Even with AI assistance, contributors, and particularly reviewers must be able to identify plagiarism, copyright violations, unsupported statements, and inappropriate analysis or speculation.

I believe we should prioritize building and reinforcing these skills first. Otherwise, we risk undermining our credibility and slipping into the "fake news" category, if we haven’t already.

—Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 19:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The answer to issues like that might be in placing more stringent requirements on newcomers' contributions, using something akin to Wikipedia's autoconfirmed and extended confirmed statuses. GreekApple123 (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

5. There could be a template which does certain auto-check things for a developing article and pops out a summary of what is wrong with it on the Talk page. For example, checking whether all of the wikilinks in the article actually lead to Wikinews/Wikipedia articles. GreekApple123 (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Increasing collaboration

Involving readers

1. Maybe readers can be allowed to offer feedback on published articles, as well as having some section of the website to give more detailed feedback or requests overall about the news. I think there may be value in asking regular Wikinews readers to offer ideas on site policy and direction at regular intervals as well. GreekApple123 (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Need for major changes?

Latest comment: 20 days ago14 comments5 people in discussion

This section was split out from a response to Michael.C.Wright's comment in the #Some ideas section:

"I believe Wikinews is either in an existential crisis or its final chapter. Without major changes, we remain largely irrelevant. We need new voices and fresh ideas to move forward." - If this is the case, which to some extent, isn't completely wrong, then maybe it's time we ask for help from our sister projects and from other language editions of Wikinews.

By "help" I mean something like a community-based survey or study. The goal would be to understand how to save Wikinews — or maybe how to restructure it. We need to identify what's going wrong, and what potential solutions might exist. We could even request a global banner to draw in editors from across the Wikimedia movement to participate in the survey or discussion.

Based on the results, we could move forward with implementing possible solutions (if there are any!) across all Wikinews editions, and try to work collectively to make things better.

We could also reach out to the WMF's Community Resilience and Sustainability, Movement Communications, or Movement Strategy teams: maybe they could help with technical support, outreach, or even just coordination.

Anyway, this is just some brainstorming I had and wanted to let out. Now that I think about it more deeply... it does sound like a lot of work though :] Asked42 (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

As an editor of bnwikinews and enwikinews. I completely agree with your proposal, but I am not sure about the responses of the Wikimedians. Md Mobashir Hossain (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is a burn out when someone tried to start working on news every day. Then walks away and there is nothing to motivate coming back. I am not sure how to resolve this. I am trying some software to notify users of new articles and new (as specific as possible) revision requests. Do you have something else in mind that could help? Can you ask a journalism teacher at your local university for feedback? Gryllida (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think a major part of what needs to be surveyed/clarified is, "Why would readers choose Wikinews over other news sources?" At Wikipedia, we often speak in terms of how to best serve the readers, and I don't see quite the same level of focus on that here. While I respect that procedures have to be followed and core principles respected, I think there also needs to be a more explicit figuring out of and focusing on what Wikinews readers want to see next.

It seems to me that anyone clicking on Wikinews rather than another news source is probably looking for things like:

Wiki features (such as hyperlinks and easy navigation)
Neutral collation of all available and relevant information sources
Rapid evolution and iteration (both of articles and the content displayed throughout the overall site)

GreekApple123 (talk) 01:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

there are a few unique parameters:

content type: interviews, original reporting, and news which are very local. cannot be added to wikipedia. this is for scope.
also for content: i like it very much that first paragraph answers 5W as it is super clear and i've not seen even one news site that does this.
for educators wikinews is useful as they can ask a journalism class to come here and write news for homework, and someone would peer review them; that's a feature most news sites don't provide. the students become equipped with news analysis skills where they don't blindly believe anything. this was done at university of wollongong until the lecturer retired. alas, nobody has tried to setup it with other universities. in my personal view this is a possibility.
for educators: improves students english, so now only for journalism but also reading and writing practice. in my view this is a strong attack vector for engaging high school students.
(also for media students can help as they could prepare reports in video format, alas we don't have much videos. most news outlets film videos on the spot. this could be resolved by making videos from a series of pictures like map of location and a photo provided in article, with a narrator. i think a computer software could generate a talking head for this, but recently in technical water cooler or somewhere audio wikinews was attempted via text to speech and it was hard because it didn't have a second voice for quotes. this too could be an interesting exercise for a person who does audio creation or editing.)

hope it helps. please let me know if you have some other perspective on this. Gryllida (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Gryllida Really, as an educator wikinews is very helpful for me. I am learning a lot of things from this site. I love Wikinews! Md Mobashir Hossain (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I personally am not at all convinced that we should promote Wikinews as any kind of educational tool right now. We have neither the consistency nor rigor required to effectively promote our content as an example of how journalism should be done. We are currently incapable of handling breaking news, our original reporting is minuscule compared to synthesis work, our policies and guidelines are old and very often unclear, ineffective, problematic, (see Gryllida's recent comment here) etc.

I believe GreekApple123 is on to something in trying to understand what makes us unique and desirable compared to other news sources. Wiki-functions are a good example. I would hedge that by also saying that Wikinews and Wikipedia are not only competing as content providers, but there is some historic 'bad blood' between the two that needs to be overcome, if possible. Our CC licenses are incompatible and neither side considers the other as a valid source. Those are going to be difficult issues to surmount.

I wonder if we're better off focusing our very limited time and energy on improving our policies, guidelines, and procedures with an eye on page-views, not as an end to a means, but as an easily measurable metric to use as guidance. This is not to say we start using click-bait titles, or other schemes, but to say page-views is the end goal and a good measure of our success. I propose we prioritize getting better data regarding articles, page-views, categories used and read, etc.

Using crude and minimal data, one might argue our page-views are increasing right now primarily because we are publishing more articles than our 2024 monthly average. We are currently looking at a roughly 12% increase in views from January to April 2025.[20] To maintain this trend, I believe we need more active reviewers as well as a careful redefinition of our review process. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 17:05, 17 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

It is not a call for action, but an overview of potential usefulness. It is within scope. When it happpens,the educator may help with reviewing. Gryllida (talk) 05:45, 18 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think another thing to interrogate is "Why would any search engine prioritize Wikinews articles over other news sources?" Part of what made Wikipedia grow so much is that search engines identified that it had a great ability to organize information due to its wiki format and extensive hyperlinking, so they would generally put Wikipedia articles at the top of search results.

And is there any way Wikinews could someday become more deeply integrated into search results or other live information-displaying platforms? GreekApple123 (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia’s visibility owes much to this partnership: Overview of Wikimedia Foundation and Google Partnership. As I understand it; when someone searches for an individual who lacks a personal website (as one example), Google may highlight their Wikipedia article, especially a BLP, at the top of results. More recently, AI-powered search summaries often surface excerpts from those BLPs.

In theory, we could propose a similar arrangement for Wikinews articles. However, I strongly oppose doing so at this time. I don’t believe our current output meets a standard of quality that merits such high visibility. Before seeking external support or integration, I believe we must first focus on raising the quality of our published work and improving page-views organically. That would make any future request for broader support more credible and better-justified. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yeah @Michael.C.Wright, But I have not any oppose to it. But I

Weak support it. Md Mobashir Hossain (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I understand it may be too early for formal measures like this. But in addition to tracking page views, it's good to start coming up with metrics/ways to track the usefulness of the information and structure given to the information that Wikinews is powering the delivery of. If a search engine wants to grab data from a 10-year old Wikinews article for example, then is there a good enough protocol and minimum essence to how Wikinews works that such a thing would work seamlessly? It should be possible to answer such questions with some kind of metric-type answer.

The discussion taking place around "Abstract Wikipedia" is the kind of thing that might offer some answers on what Wikinews means in a broader Wikimedia ecosystem, if not in a broader news and information ecosystem. GreekApple123 (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think part of the challenge should revolve around figuring out Wikinews's responsibility. News outlets generally have responsibilities to some kind of constituency, such that if they don't cover news in a timely or reasonable way, they are trashed by their stakeholders. What are the things Wikinews - and by extension, its contributors - is responsible for achieving in a global context, which can later be held up by Wikinewsies in defense of the work they are doing? GreekApple123 (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's not exactly a survey, but there is an ongoing consultation being planned regarding Wikinews. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how it will turn out. I just hope the result will be an improvement of the Wikinews project and not its abandonment. -- Asked42 (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Suggest to shorten + separate requirements from fixables

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The WN:SG and WN:CG are very long and hard for newbies to 100% follow. This makes news writing harder and more frustrating.

The new article template meanwhile does not say basic stuff like verb tense, active voice, etc.

https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Writing_an_article 5 pages

https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Article_layout_in_a_nutshell 4 pages

New article template - 1 page

I'm suggesting to trial a page like Wikinews:Writing an article (short version)

Will require effort to fixup markup for newbies and teach them markup, but may as well be worth it as lowers barrier to entry and content is probably going to be passable?

Regards, -- Gryllida (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Proposed guideline

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have resurrected a fourteen-year-old proposal for WN:Plagiarism. I would like to put the guideline to a vote within the next week. There is already a lengthy and thoughtful discussion at Wikinews talk:Plagiarism, which I tried to meld into a consensus document.

As I stated there; as with many discussions and votes, there's a tendency for the scope to expand. I'd like to caution against that here. Our goal is a simple, plain-language guideline, and I believe we've achieved that. I'm open to feedback.

Please comment at Wikinews talk:Plagiarism. Depending on how that discussion goes, I will hopefully put the guideline to a formal vote here soon.

Thank you! —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 16:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

~~Specifically what changes are you proposing? Gryllida (talk) 05:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)~~I've replied at the talk page of that page. For your future reference, given the scope of this project, giving 'one week' timelines is not going to work well. More like 'one month' or 'three months'. In one month, perhaps two out of ten reviewers are going to have a look at this page. I'm going to do something about that shortly. Gryllida (talk) 09:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The place for discussing categories

Latest comment: 20 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For now, I am creating this section to discuss any proposed or current Wikinews categories (a separate section might be appropriate for other category-related discussion). GreekApple123 (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Proposed plagiarism guideline

Latest comment: 12 days ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I am formally proposing the community comment and/or vote on the newly revised plagiarism guideline at Wikinews:Plagiarism. While I appreciate that past proposals might have taken months to reach consensus, given that there was a 14-year-old proposal already in place and our recent issues with plagiarism, I believe the currently active community can agree on this short, reasonable, and plainly written guideline quickly. Please take a look and share your thoughts. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The proposal is: Wikinews should make Wikinews:Plagiarism an official guideline.

Questions, comments, votes

Comment The note at the top of the proposed guideline is not meant to stay in place once it is accepted. It will be moved to the bottom of the guideline. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC); edited with last sentence added. 14:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Comment In light of this news, I believe it is crucial for us to finalize Wikinews:Plagiarism and focus fully on producing the highest quality content, prioritizing quality over speed. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 16:34, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Support I support as proposer. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Support Leaderboard (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Comment few points:
- Firstly the page does not add anything new. Even if everyone says 'nope, I don't like how that page is written', the content is already known. There is as far as I know, not even a single user on the wiki who thinks that copyright violations via any of the "dont do that" methods listed on the page are acceptable.
- I've added a 'see also' section, and examples.
- I'm OK with it being official guideline.
- QuestionI would like to know how Wikipedia handles this. Do they have a write up about not messing up the writing to avoid plagiarism detectors etc.
- cc Michael.C.Wright, Leaderboard

--Gryllida 18:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

p.s. added two practical tips on the page: dont save pasted content as another user won't know; use earwig (link provided). Gryllida 18:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi Gryllida, RockerballAustralia, Michael.C.Wright, Bddpaux, JJLiu112 Hi @George Ho @Wikiwide @BigKrow @Lofi Gurl @Back ache @Md Mobashir Hossain @Almondo2025, @Dsuke1998AEOS, @Ternera, @Monsieur2137 @Asked42, @Sheminghui.WU, @excelblue (if you want yourself removed or someone else added to this list, please inquire here) A revision has been requested. Here is a list of what to do. (If/when you intend to start working on it, please Subscribe to this section and to this talk page, and post reply messages here when you started and finished editing) See below: 1) Comment on the above page and propose changes if needed. Gryllida 18:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

My Observation on Wikinews

Latest comment: 14 days ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Here, I report about Wikinews. Please, review it. (In there, I suggest some proposals. So I am sharing It here:/) Md Mobashir Hossain (talk) 05:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

agreed with it, how can i help? what software or tools is needed? if you make a list, then i or someone can code it. Gryllida 11:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Gryllida I have created it on here. Md Mobashir Hossain (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

for translations: maybe check language set in users browser, if no translation exists, post banner at page top "the page is 0% translated to <name of lamguage>, can you help [here (link to a translation page thingy]?" can this be done with lua or something. how?? cc @Leaderboard @Asked42 Thanks Gryllida 11:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Translation? There is mediawikiwiki:Extension:Translate, but that only works on Meta and other multilingual projects. Leaderboard (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Nope! It is w:Special:ContentTranslation ! Md Mobashir Hossain (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Those are two different things - one is a way for people to translate to other languages on the same place - while the other is a way to create translated copies on different Wikipedias. Leaderboard (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yeah! My observation to the all Wikinews. Md Mobashir Hossain (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Proposed amendment to Wikinews:Style guide#Wikilinking an article

Latest comment: 9 days ago10 comments4 people in discussion

If you look at the current Main Page, you will notice that the lead for Activists claim sexual abuse and torture at the hands of Tanzanian authorities (apparently) has a lot of punctuation errors and omitted words. There is nothing egregiously wrong with the article per se, just that template output is not appropriately displayed.

I'm proposing to add the following text to WN:STYLE#Wikilinking an article:

Because of technical limitations, Wikinews's main page cannot display wikilinks or template output within the leads of the highlighted articles. Please avoid using {{Tl|w}} or other templates on the lead paragraph.

as a workaround until that problem is fixed at {{Lead 2.0}} and other templates (unfortunately, I do not have much experience with parser functions). Dsuke1998 AEOS (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Reviewers can preview the lead before publishing it to the main page and should manually correct errors like this. They should already be checking for days of the week—which are allowed in the article lede but discouraged in main page leads—and replacing them with dates.

The issues you identified may have been cause by the way the {{w}} was used in that particular article, which included spaces after the "w." I haven't noticed this issue in the main page leads before and we routinely have these types of links in the lede.

I have corrected that lead on the main page. Thank you for the heads up! —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

lead manager tool skips showing text of links made via "w" template, I think a bug Gryllida 11:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

cc @Asked42 Please implement a fix in Lead Manager ? Gryllida 11:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The lead manager intentionally removes the w template links, this is not a bug. Since the make lead script also performs the same cleanup, I assumed it might be a guideline or a community standard. That's why I kept the cleanup of links and w template instances enabled in the lead manager. Just to be clear, are you suggesting that I should remove the link cleanup operations from the script so that interwiki links appear in the leads? Asked42 (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I personally do not think we should include hyperlinks to other sites in our Main page. I think those hyperlinks should continue to be scrubbed so that readers are directed only to our articles from the Main page.

I believe the problem was caused by an irregular usage of {{w}} that included extra spaces after the "W" and also after the value for the first parameter. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The problem caused can be see in this diff. Examples of irregular usage of {{w}} from the article:

{{w |1=Boniface Mwangi}}
{{w |1=Tanzania |2=Tanzanian}}

I believe the formatting with the extra space is the ultimate culprit. Maybe if LeadManager could handle that error, that'd be great, but I don't think its a high priority. Reviewers should preview the Lead before publishing them and even check them afterwords and correct errors immediately. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Reviewers and contributors should also be converting {{w}} to local links when they resolve to local categories. Many of those links in the lede should be changed. If the reviewer did that, they might have noticed and corrected the irregular usage as well. So there are plenty of opportunities to catch issues like this before it ever reaches LeadManager. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 16:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Michael.C.Wright: I see the issue, it might be happening because the w template is using numbered parameters like {{w|1=...}}. The script currently assumes that the template is used as {{w|text}} or {{w|target|text}}, so this causes a problem. I'll fix it in a few days.

That said, there could be thousands of different variations in template usage and link formatting. While it's not impossible to account for all of them, it's definitely not easy to handle every different case accurately.

And yes, as you mentioned, it's expected that the reviewer making the update gives everything a final look before applying the changes. Asked42 (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

That said, there could be thousands of different variations in template usage and link formatting. While it's not impossible to account for all of them, it's definitely not easy to handle every different case accurately. Agreed and I don't think any reasonable person would expect you to code for unsupported or otherwise-irregular uses. I think (or hope?) this was a one-off issue. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 22:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Draft: Review checklist for peer review

Latest comment: 1 hour ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A draft proposal for a dedicated review checklist has been posted at Wikinews:Review checklist. Further context and discussion are available on its talk page: Wikinews talk:Review checklist. Feedback is requested there. Thank you in advance! Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 01:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals

Markup for developing articles and the review process

Markup updates

Project proposal for 2025

Questions and comments

Note

Votes

Audio news

Three-Points-Plan to Jumpstart Wikinews

Reviewers self-sighting within 24 hours

Publicizing reviewership request Darkfrog24

Can we make a help for making new article

Some ideas

Categories

Sections and chapterization

News feed for readers

RSS feed proposals

Following specific contributors

Chronology

Connecting to the past

Live content

Looking to the future

Improvements to templates

Increasing collaboration

Involving readers

Need for major changes?

Suggest to shorten + separate requirements from fixables

Proposed guideline

The place for discussing categories

Proposed plagiarism guideline

Questions, comments, votes

My Observation on Wikinews

Proposed amendment to Wikinews:Style guide#Wikilinking an article

Draft: Review checklist for peer review