Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals

Page last updated: Friday 16 at 0613 UTC.      

Refresh   

Archive

---

Archives 2009  May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 2010  January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 2011  January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 December 2011 2012  January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 2013  March 2013 April 2013 July 2013 September 2013 November 2013 2014  January 2014 February 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 2015  January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 October 2015 2016  January 2016 March 2016 May 2016 July 2016 August 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 2017  January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 August 2017 November 2017 December 2017 2018  January 2018 February 2018 April 2018 May 2018 July 2018 August 2018 September 2018 October 2018 November 2018 2019  February 2019 March 2019 April 2019 May 2019 June 2019 December 2019 2020  January 2020 March 2020 May 2020 June 2020 October 2020 2021  February 2021 July 2021 December 2021 2022  January 2022 February 2022 May 2022 June 2022 July 2022 August 2022 October 2022 2023  January 2023 March 2023 November 2023 2024  May 2024 June 2024 September 2024 October 2024 December 2024 January 2025 February 2025 March 2025 April 2025 May 2025 June 2025 July 2025 August 2025 September 2025 November 2025

Moving on from Liquid Threads

Phase 1: Stop using LQT

Done This Phase is Completed.

Community, I think it's time we stop using Liquid Threads from now on the comment pages. Except for English Wikinews, no other Wikimedia project is actively using it. The extension is no longer maintained and may cause various bugs or issues. Also, the comment pages here aren't very active, so switching away from LiquidThreads shouldn't have any significant impact on readers or editors. I think it's time we move to using the DiscussionTools for comments.

To do this, we need to update the pages {{Commentary/LQT}} and Wikinews:Commentary pages on news events/body, so that the EasyPeerReview gadget uses the new DiscussionTools specific template, {{Commentary/DT}} (which is prepared by @ESanders (WMF)). Thank you. -- Asked42 (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Pinging editors: @George Ho @Wikiwide @BigKrow @Lofi Gurl @Back ache @Md Mobashir Hossain @Almondo2025, @Dsuke1998AEOS, @Ternera, @Monsieur2137 @Asked42, @Sheminghui.WU, @Koavf, @@Michael.C.Wright. @Gryllida, @Heavy Water. -- Asked42 (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@Asked42 I was actually thinking about this too, and I support the proposal. However, I feel that putting effort into the new setup might be unnecessary right now, since there’s little activity on these comment pages. It doesn’t seem like an important change at the moment. (Edited using ai for Grammarly correction) Md Mobashir Hossain (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@Md Mobashir Hossain: Well, there aren't really any technical efforts needed. The only change we have to make is to replace {{Commentary/LQT}} with {{Commentary/DT}} and update Wikinews:Commentary pages on news events/body: that's all. So, no new setup is required. Also as I mentioned earlier, LiquidThreads is no longer maintained, and I think it is better that we start moving away from it before the extension gets disabled by the WMF. Asked42 (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Since the extension is no longer being maintained, this seems like a reasonable update if we switch back. Ternera (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

To clarify: In the above proposal, I am only referring to stopping the further use of LiquidThreads; not the migration of existing comment pages that already use it. For that please check this phabricator task: T350164. -- Asked42 (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. There is an orderly process to wind it down. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:43, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, is there a demo of how it would work? I have no objections as long as comments are kept in comment namespace. (It would tangentially help if there was a testwiki for Wikinews.) Gryllida 21:02, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Same as above. As long as the comments feature remains almost unchanged, I have no problem with it. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Gryllida, @Sheminghui.WU: No existing comments will be affected. This change is only about using the same discussion system as talk pages on comment pages, instead of LiquidThreads.

The commenting system itself won't be affected. people will still be able to post new comments. If needed, we can use some custom CSS to improve the look and experience of the comment namespace. -- Asked42 (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Another thing I'd like to add is that the comment system on wikinews has been inactive for years. Continuing to use outdated and unmaintained extensions won't help revive it. By adopting more modern approaches we can also explore ways to make the comment system active again. -- Asked42 (talk) 07:44, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

What is the comment template used on the Russian Wikinews?~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

not LiquidThreads, it's something ugly with only wiki markup. example. -- Gryllida 04:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

As long as future readers can continue to post comments, I support it; it's reasonable. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Here is a demo of how the new template works: Comments:DiscussionTools test page. Feel free to delete/move this page once tested. ESanders (WMF) (talk) 11:29, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Nice, thank you, @ESanders (WMF). Gryllida 06:05, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Support And I'll help with making changes and coordination however I can. I'll have much more time by October 16, but right now my availability will be in short, sporadic bursts.

We'll also need to read through the phabricator request you linked below to better understand how we migrate away from LQT entirely. I think we'll need a bot or script to convert the old LQT pages to standard wikitext, as mentioned here.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 13:45, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I would be willing to run mw:User:Flow cleanup bot here if the community asks for it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:27, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@Pppery: Thanks for the bot. Just to confirm, does this bot convert LQT to Flow, or only Flow to wikitext? As far as I know, none of the Liquid threads pages here have been converted to Flow yet (or at least I haven't seen any), so I just want to make sure I understand how it would work. -- Asked42 (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

It converts Flow to wikitext. The Wikimedia Foundation has their own script they are planning to run to convert LQT to Flow. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:29, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Pppery for the explanation. So, will the WMF run the script themselves, or do we have to inform them? And yes, I do think we'll need the bot to convert conversations to wikitext. -- Asked42 (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

See phab:T406717. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:35, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Adding on to this, I did write a mode for Flow cleanup bot that does the conversion to Flow on an internal wiki instead of letting the WMF do it, which I may end up using on translatewiki.net. But that's uglier and more work for me, so I'll just let the WMF do their convert and clean up afterward on WMF wikis. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:45, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

> so that the EasyPeerReview gadget uses the new DiscussionTools specific template, {{Commentary/DT}} (which is prepared by @ESanders (WMF)).

Do we need to rope in Bawolff to make changes to EasyPeerReview at some point?Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 00:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

EPR uses Wikinews:Commentary pages on news events/body to create the comment pages. Updating this will do the job. -- Asked42 (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Phase 2: Converting LQT to Flow

Done This Phase is Completed.

The existing comment namespace pages that use Liquid Threads and already have any comments will be converted to Flow. This will make the pages read-only, meaning no new comments can be added. I don't think this will be an issue, since there's no/little purpose in adding new comments to older articles.

There are two possible approaches:

1. Move these comment pages to archive pages, e.g., Comments:Article Name/LQT Archive, with a specific link on the original comment page.
2. Keep them where they are, like Comments:Article Name, without moving them to an archive. In either case, no new comments can be added after the conversion to flow.

Note: Existing comments will not be deleted, they will remain intact. Recent articles and their commenting processes will not be affected.

Also, the read-only status for the Flow converted pages is temporary. In Phase 3, we can convert the Flow pages to wikitext, and then the comments will be editable again for anyone who wants to add comments to older articles.

If there's anything I missed, I request @ESanders (WMF) to shed some light on it. Thank you. -- Asked42 (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I suggested on Phabricator, and still think, that we should keep them where they are. The commentary system is so lightly used here, and extremely little harm would come from disabling comments temporarily (until Phase 3 gets done) - lots of news sites don't allow comments or don't allow comments on old articles. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 01:07, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

• Agree. --Asked42 (talk) 04:39, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear - there are recent articles which link to active comment pages that would become frozen and unmoveable (even by admins), for example: Comments:Israeli naval ships intercept Gaza-bound Global Sumud Flotilla. If you are still happy with this situation that we can proceed withouth moving the pages first. ESanders (WMF) (talk) 10:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Published articles rarely get moved. They're meant to become static snapshots in time. And I think we could hack around the need to change headlines using {{DISPLAYTITLE}}, correct?

However, if we do need to move one, who has the ability to move them?

Thanks for the help!Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 16:50, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Re DISPLAYTITLE, probably not since I think mw:Manual:$wgRestrictDisplayTitle is enabled here so DISPLAYTITLE can't make substantive changes.

Re moves, only the sysadmins would be able to do that and for them it would involve an extremely manual and tedious process (which has been done at least twice before so is not completely unheard of, but I doubt they'll be happy doing what they see as cleaning up a mess you yourself created). But my intent is that this be a quick temporary state; I run Flow cleanup bot to outright delete the original unmovable comments pages ASAP (I have checked and deleting and undeleting is allowed even though moving isn't) and replacing them with wikitext exports. I'm probably wishfully thinking though - nothing involving advanced permissions is quick with enwikinews in its current dead state. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I was also thinking about that. The non movable Flow state is only temporary and once they are converted to wikitext, the comment section will be enabled again. So for now not moving the comments to the archive seems to be the best option. -- Asked42 (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Asked42, hello everyone, yes, these are the two possible approaches. We recommend the first approach (of moving all of the Comments pages to subpages), but you are welcome to choose the alternative if you prefer. Please tell us which you decide on, then the developers can proceed (likely within the next few days). The developers can then convert the LQT content into Flow content and freeze it, and @Pppery can (per his kind offer above) help you by converting those Flow pages into wikitext sometime soon after. –– @Quiddity (WMF) and STei (WMF) (talk) 11:58, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

From my side, not moving the comments still seems to be the best approach. But, if it is possible to move them for the most recent five or so articles, that would serve as a safe buffer in case there's any delay in assigning the Flow cleanup bot permissions.

As @Pppery mentioned above, it will require permissions; the only active local bureaucrat is @Gryllida. -- Asked42 (talk) 04:50, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Filed Wikinews:Bots/Requests/Flow cleanup bot. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:21, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Comment I think I have an elementary grasp of Liquid Threads, but can someone explain to me what it is [like I am a Labrador Retriever]? Brain fog this morning!--Bddpaux (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

We use them on our Comment pages for published articles. It was originally intended (I believe) to be leveraged in a way that non-wiki readers could comment in a threaded manner, without really knowing how a wiki talk page works.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 19:23, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Phase 3: Converting Flow to Wikitext

This is the final and hopefully last phase. The conversion from LQT to Flow has almost been completed, and User:Pppery will perform the final conversion using the Flow Cleanup Bot to convert Flow to wikitext. For More details, see phab:T406717. --Asked42 (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@Asked42 thank you –– STei (WMF) (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@Gryllida: Can you take a look at Wikinews:Bots/Requests/Flow cleanup bot for granting permission, so that we can move forward to the final phase? Thank you. -- Asked42 (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bddpaux is also a bureaucrat and has been recently active and may be able to help.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:05, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I am not a bureaucrat at this project -- sorry.--Bddpaux (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Are you sure? When I view your groups, I see this with no changes since:

22:33, 31 July 2021 Gryllida changed group membership for Bddpaux: granted bureaucrat; kept reviewer and administrator unchanged (per nomination and discussion)Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

[1]. And then this mess from a different era. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I didn't know to check at Meta. Thanks.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I've exported an example page at Comments:Liquid Thread Testing/LQT Export. Original at Comments:Liquid Thread Testing. Can everyone confirm I'm doing something sane here before before I proceed with converting the rest of the pages? (That took a lot of manual work because I had to dust off my old code and adapt it to LQT's conventions; the rest should be much smoother). I made some edits to Template:Commentary/LQT, planning to use it as the header for originally-LQT comments pages, while leaving Template:Commentary/DT as is for DicussionTools comments pages. And I also created Template:LQT summary to use for the little summary boxes (copying from the styling LQT gave). Thoughts on all of this welcome. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:25, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Seems good to me. Thank you for your work. -- Asked42 (talk) 06:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, seems people like how this works. I've processed a sample of another around 100 pages: Special:Contribs/Flow cleanup bot. I'll do the rest sometime tomorrow barring any objections. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

No comments. So I completed the first phase of the bot (exporting Flow boards to wikitext). I still have the second phase (fixing links) to do - it's being a bit of a pain because the newly-exported comments aren't appearing in the DiscussionTools database yet - I'll poke at that tomorrow (time permitting) hoping it's just lag. The way I did things that part of the bot also requires admin rights (since it reads text from the Flow board I just deleted) so I would like to keep my permissions on the bot for another week or so in case of that or other unforseen problems. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Done link fixes. There were many fewer than I expected to do - I guess it shows that Comments namespace was by design a forgotten backwater. I left the link User_talk:Pi_zero/Archive_6#A misunderstanding? alone because the page was protected; please tell me if I should edit through protection for that too. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Gryllida: I believe Flow cleanup bot has finished its work and can have its permissions removed (I didn't want them removed on Nov 26 in case some unforeseen problem cropped up, but none seems to have)

Minor tidying things the community can do, or not, if they wish.

Fix the link in Pi zero's protected archive to point to Comments:Two unconscious drug-overdosed men discovered outside University of Canberra residence hall#Boring?

Delete the pages that ESanders (WMF) moved before archiving; I left them alone as they didn't interfere with my planned structure to put the comments on the basepage without "/LQT Archive".

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Flow cleanup bot finished work - ok, thanks! What are these other items linked? Do they require sysop/admin action? Gryllida 07:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

They require no specific action right now - they are merely things the community may wish to be aware of. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Done and Done.

Is Phase 3 done now and if so, should we archive/close this discussion?Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:34, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Reforming review process

As outlined above, I propose initiating a broader reform project focused on updating our WN:Archive and Wikinews:Reviewing articles policies. There is no single fix for the challenges we face, but as a first step, I propose the adoption of a two-stage review process.

Stage one:

• Articles must still be fully verified for accuracy (verifiability), neutrality, copyright, and newsworthiness.
• Minor style issues (such as wikilinking, paragraph flow, or inverted pyramid structure) should not block publication if the core review criteria are met.

Stage two:

• Articles published with minor style issues will remain editable for style improvements only (no additional facts, no new sources, etc), for up to three days post-publication.

Flagged revisions will be maintained to ensure only style changes make it into the published article.

I encourage discussion of the specific elements of this proposal. If you support parts of it but object to others, please raise those details so we can explore a possible consensus solution.

To avoid misrepresenting anyone’s views, I kindly ask that contributors do not rewrite this proposal in their own words. Instead, if you disagree, please consider formatting a clear counter-proposal for comparison.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:10, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Support: These are definitely important modifications worth considering. Minor style issues shouldn't prevent an article from being published. (However, I think this should be a recommendation for reviewers, not a strict policy. For example, if a reviewer believes that fixing style issues would significantly alter the article or require rewriting many sentences, then marking it for redevelopment would be appropriate.)

To prevent major issues before the review phase, the best approach in my opinion would be to have detailed and well-explained help pages with examples that guide new editors in writing better articles. Reviewers could then refer editors to those pages if an article fails review. This would also save reviewers' time, as they wouldn't have to write long explanatory comments every time, they could simply point to those resources as a reference.

And yes, all checks (verifiability, neutrality, copyright, and newsworthiness) are definitely important. If we start publishing unverified information or compromise on neutrality and our style guidelines just to increase the publication rate, it will do more harm to the Wikinews project than having fewer but higher-quality articles published. I'm not saying we shouldn't aim to increase publication rates, but compromising on core policies should never be the way to achieve that. -- Asked42 (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I think that any changes need to somehow deal with articles becoming stale because of a lack of interest in reviewing them. This should basically never happen and be unacceptable, as it's a waste of valuable contributors' time and severely hurts morale. Tduk (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

That’s an important point, and it’s already being discussed at Wikinews talk:Newsworthiness#Re-evalutation. Are you suggesting that we postpone this discussion of review process reforms until that question is settled?

I’d argue these conversations can and should happen in parallel. Newsworthiness is central to what defines Wikinews. Without it, we’re functionally indistinguishable from Wikipedia. We are a news org, not an encyclopedia. So far, the community seems inclined to maintain the Newsworthiness principle. Even if we reaffirm that newsworthiness remains central, and I think we should, there’s still plenty we can do to address review delays and staleness through workflow changes, including the two-stage process I’ve proposed.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 23:22, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

If no one is willing to do the reviews, how does this help? Is the implication that this well make the reviewers who have been inactive for the past week somehow start reviewing again? Also, stating that freshness is the only thing that distinguishes this site from wikipedia is ignoring the two important areas of original reporting and interviews. Tduk (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Let's say for argument's sake, we remove Newsworthiness altogether. Let's also say, for argument's sake, no one is willing to do the reviews.
How does that get more articles published?; edited 01:09, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Let's keep that discussion at Wikinews talk:Newsworthiness#Re-evalutation rather than here.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 23:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Reviewers should be explicitly allowed to make minor edits that do not involve factual changes, which are rare in practice. I’m reposting a message I posted on Telegram: “I actually think ENWN should allow reviewers to make minor edits to articles. For example, in today’s two articles, the reviewer of the UN piece only requested an additional source, and in my travel interview, they just wanted two images removed. However, by the time our volunteers saw these comments, several hours had already passed, and waiting for the next review would take even longer.

I feel that completely prohibiting reviewers from editing doesn’t really align with Wikinews. It’s a volunteer site, and no one profits from it, so is such strict avoidance really necessary? My previous FUSION interview also got delayed for a long time, during which there was no substantive Wiki collaboration, because aside from me, everyone else was a reviewer. The reviewers were reluctant to edit, since doing so would make them lose their review privileges, and then they would have to wait with other editors together.

Therefore, if reviewers were allowed to make limited edits, it could greatly improve the efficiency of handling articles without compromising the fairness of the review process"

Reviewers are in fact our most loyal and powerful group of contributors, and in the slumps of the site they even make up half of the contributors. Isolating such an important group from the wiki collaboration (it is a wiki) is not conducive to development. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

(Although this may be more related to WN:Reviewer) ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. I guess the concern must be that they aren't trusted not to make mistakes. I disagree with that thinking, so I think you have a good idea. Tduk (talk) 03:14, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

> Reviewers should be explicitly allowed to make minor edits that do not involve factual changes, which are rare in practice.

This is already permitted and done in practice. It's the addition of new facts and especially the addition of new sources that is strictly prohibited. Reviewers can make existing statements of fact more accurate with language changes and can of-course remove inaccurate statements entirely. However, it becomes problematic when that removal significantly changes the flow or cohesiveness of an article and fails to make it publishable.

The optimal solution is for contributors to only submit articles for review that are extremely close already to a publishable state; all statements factually accurate, neutral, and originally worded (not plagiarized).Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 16:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I think this is realistic. According to current standards, it seems that even if an article is revised and edited within 24 hours of publication, it still requires a third-party reviewer to review it. This is simply impossible. Many of our articles may not receive initial review within 24 hours. Reviewers should not be required to review these minor changes from a random published articel within 24 hours. Extending the time limit is justified. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright In fact, should this discussion thread be placed in the policy discussion area? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe it is beneficial or advisable to move this conversation at this time. You are right it should have been located there. However, I do not believe it being incorrectly placed here has any impact on its relevance or the involvement of others in the discussion.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 17:00, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I should be clear that I do support this. Tduk (talk) 03:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

How do we make this happen? Tduk (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bddpaux, Gryllida, Lofi Gurl: I’d like to see more input from other reviewers and admins before moving forward with even a small, gradual change to the review process. This isn’t meant to diminish the feedback shared so far. However, the only reviewer weighing in is me, who also proposed the change.

@Bawolff, could you update EasyPeerReview to allow publishing when the Style guide drop-down is set to “Not reviewed”? I’d also suggest adjusting the {{peer_reviewed}} template. Perhaps make it yellow when Style guide compliance hasn’t been reviewed, and add a note encouraging contributors to bring the article into compliance within 72 hours. I can help with this if needed (I’m able to edit the Peer reviewed template).

To clarify, I’m not proposing that reviewers publish articles without checking against the Style guide just yet. Since occasional exceptions are already permitted, this change to EasyPeerReview would remain consistent with existing policy, while letting us move more quickly if consensus forms around the proposal.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 16:50, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Moved to #EzPR 2025

They are already open for minor edits for eternity. Why is this change needed? Gryllida 12:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

The change would allow reviewers to explicitly skip checking the Style guide before publication, in phase 1.

Current policy allows for minor edits, yes. But it does not allow reviewers to skip the step. However, it has become practice by some reviewers to skip it and that is another reason to consider revising the policy as-written.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I have updated the following:

• WN:REV#Checklist to explicitly permit reviewers to skip (defer) Style review
• WN:AC#Age for protection to move standard protection from 24 hours to three days

Not to reviewers: WN:EzPR 2025 should be used to report when exceptions are made to either WN:Fresh or WN:Style.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I believe this discussion can be closed as successful: two policies have been updated as stated above. EzPR 2025 now has the ability to publish with exceptions and reviewers are already doing so. The explicit "two phase" portion didn't achieve consensus, but we do still go through articles as part of WN:Archive, which should catch issues not addressed in the review.

Are there any objections to me closing this discussion (as the original proposer and heavily involved in discussion)?Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:39, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

EzPR 2025

@Asked42, would you be willing and able to create an EzPR v 1.2 or an entirely new review gadget or script? I envision you developing the new version as an installable script for now, then once/if broadly accepted by reviewers, it could replace the existing version. Some desired upgrades/fixes/tweaks would include (prioritized)

1. New option for Style and Newsworthiness to include the new option "Make exception" which allows article publication when the option is selected for either or both.

• A way to effectively reflect that a guideline exception was made in Template:Peer reviewed, possibly using a different color and/or different verbiage such as "Revision 12345 of this article has been reviewed by Skenmy (talk · contribs) and has passed its review with exceptions...

2. Updated appearance of both the UI and the reporting through Template:Peer reviewed to better conform to the latest codex
3. If possible, fix the inability to use the "Reply" to the template output as if it were a comment. For example, clicking the "Reply" link forces the following error when using CD: "Couldn't find the comment in the source code. This may be caused by complexity of the comment code..." I know other reviewers who don't use CD who have also mentioned this unexpected behavior as well.

I would be happy to test it and otherwise help however I can.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 17:30, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright: I can work on developing a version 2 of the EPR, built on the legacy of the current one (assuming there are no objections).

Regarding point 2, the review form can be made using codex, but on the peer reviewed template we cannot directly use codex components. If the design needs to be changed it will have to be done using CSS only. For point 3, that fix will also need to be applied to the peer reviewed template, along with some changes to the script itself. I will start working on the development soon.

Is there anything else, features or design suggestions you have in mind? -- Asked42 (talk) 07:16, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Not personally. I think to get movement initially, we keep it simple. I do have other ideas but with lower priority than #1 above. Thank you bigly!Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:17, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Surely. But since a new version is being developed, a more proper and broader discussion may be beneficial as it could also help me understand the scope better.

I am also not sure if other reviewers will be interested in this, so I will ask around for more feedback here and there, either before creating it or after an initial version is ready. -- Asked42 (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Understood. One longer term 'desire' then would be possibly a large, master JSON file to track actions such as number of reviews per article before publish, number of 'not ready' per article, etc. But again, I would hate for that feature to hold up delivery of a product that takes care of #1 above. The goal is to make it easier and more transparent for exceptions to be made when reviewing against guidelines. I'm not proposing we accommodate similar exceptions to the core policies of copyright, verifiability, or neutrality (just to be clear).Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 22:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright: I am somewhat on my way to preparing an initial version. Regarding the exception for style and newsworthiness criteria, it will also require making modifications to the {{peer reviewed}} template and some other related templates as well. Is there any discussion about this exception elsewhere? As in, would it allow publishing an article even if the newsworthiness and/or style has not been checked (makred as exception)? -- Asked42 (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

A discussion at Wikinews talk:Newsworthiness#Re-evalutation involved publishing stale material "without having to go through this rigorous review process"[2], which is not what I’m proposing here.

The reason for adding a "make exception" option to Newsworthiness is that OR is already listed as an exception to WN:Freshness.

To clarify my statement that "minor style issues...should not block publication," I mean small issues such as incorrect time formats, numbers not spelled out below 20, or missing italics for titles, all issues that are already commonly present in published material. Missing sources would not qualify, though a missing author name might.

We are also already encouraged to fix "small style errors" during the Archive process, recognizing that style is secondary to accuracy, sourcing, and substance.

All guidelines, including Newsworthiness and the style guide, note that "common sense and occasional exceptions are expected."

As I mentioned in my request to Bawolff above, even if the proposal of a two stage review process + extension of 24-hour window is not successful, the changes to EzPR and the Peer reviewed template remain immediately useful and policy-based.

That said, the proposal isn’t successful yet. Only four people have commented, and I’m the only reviewer so far. Non-reviewer input is valuable, but since this directly affects the review process, feedback from at least one other reviewer is essential.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Is there a policy-based reason for giving reviewers more input on policy? Tduk (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

So currently, two subtemplates are used in {{peer reviewed}}: {{Peer reviewed/Passed}} and {{Peer reviewed/Failed}}. So for 'Passed with Exception,' I think we will also need {{Peer reviewed/Exception}}?

And in version 2 of the EPR script, 'Passed with Exception' will be a separate category. --Asked42 (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Adding a third template that EzPR v.1 doesn't use would also minimize problems between the two while we make the move from one to the other. Would you like (would it help) if I made the Exception template? I would simply mimic the current templates without changing the style (which I think you are much better at than I am).Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 19:06, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Sure, go for it. Also I think it would be nice to change the text to indicate that an exception was made or to include any other relevant instructions. -- Asked42 (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

@Asked42, I used EZPR v2 in 'production' today. The review process worked fine. However, clicking on "Create a Lead!" took me to the following url: https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Easy_Peer_Review_(2025_version)/LeadManager, a non-existent page.

I manually used LeadManager and it worked fine.

Thanks again for all the work you've put into these tools!Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 16:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I somehow forgot to create that page. It is now created: Wikinews:Easy Peer Review (2025 version)/LeadManager. Thanks. -- Asked42 (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

A minor thing; can the talk page posting remove the underscores in the article title, as seen here?Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 16:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. Now it should remove the underscores. -- Asked42 (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• EzPR 2025 is now loaded for all reviewers. -- Asked42 (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• I believe this discussion can be closed as successful. EzPR 2025 is now available and in use, with on-going development as we work through new features, etc.

Are there any objections to me closing this discussion (as the original proposer and heavily involved in discussion)?Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:54, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

New versions of Develop and Review template

Proposal to update {{Develop}} with {{Develop/sandbox}} and {{Review}} with {{Review/sandbox}}.

Also, to update {{Tasks}} with {{Tasks/sandbox}}.

These two are among the most important templates for new editors. The updates make them more user friendly by listing key guidelines and tools that can assist in developing articles. A new "Submit for review" action button has also been added to the Develop template, a more modern approach (similar to what is used on English Wikipedia). It performs basic security and validation checks before submitting an article for review (like checking if the article has at least two sources and so).

I believe these changes will enhance the article development lifecycle on wikinews. If any sentence adjustments are needed, feel free to suggest or make them directly. Suggestions for additional features are also welcome. -- Asked42 (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Love the idea and execution. I started to (boldly) immediately implement it but ran into something unexpected. I applied {{Develop/sandbox}} to Syrian leader Ahmed al-Sharaa meets Russian president Vladimir Putin and the following text appeared (and was hyperlinked) before the 'submit' button at the bottom of the xambox. I suspect it should be all part of the submit action and not rendered as linked text?

leader Ahmed al-Sharaa meets Russian president Vladimir Putin?withJS=MediaWiki:SubmitWizard_(proposal).js&page=Syrian leader Ahmed al-Sharaa meets Russian president Vladimir PutinMichael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I tested {{Review/sandbox}} with EasyPeeRreview (EPR) and I didn't see any issues other than the gadget didn't remove the review template from the article on a 'not ready' outcome, but probably due to the fact it's the sandboxed version of the template and EPR looks for and removes {{Review}}. Therefore, I would call that expected behavior.

Considering there are so few people active here and we need to get forward momentum going on improving things around here, I have no qualms about implementing these changes once you work through the issue identified with {{Develop/sandbox}}. Unless of course someone objects before I do so. ツMichael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright: I have resolved the issue on {{Develop/sandbox}}. It was a very small and silly mistake on my part. I tested it on this revision, and it successfully submitted the article for review. Thank you for pointing out the mistake. And yes, you are correct about EPR not removing {{Review/sandbox}}, as it specifically looks for the {{Review}} template. -- Asked42 (talk) 06:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Changes implemented. Thanks!Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 19:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I have added new actions to {{Review/sandbox}}. One is "Help an Abandoned Article", which suggests an abandoned article from the review category. If no abandoned article is available, it will suggest any article currently waiting for review.

The next action is "Mark as Under Review", which is intended for reviewers only, other users cannot perform this action. When clicked, it adds the {{Under review}} template to the article. --Asked42 (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Changes implemented. Thanks again!Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 19:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright: Happy to contribute! If there are any features that can improve editors' experience with article creation and the overall article development lifecycle, I'd be happy to assist with that as well. Thank you too. --Asked42 (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

If you have time, maybe optimizing or even organizing the process of writing OR notes. Maybe if we had a javascript front end, that had fields for optional types of notes such as interview transcripts, radio buttons to select interview type (in person, email, social media, all of the above, etc). A radio button to declare if info was sent to Scoop, another to declare that the interviewee's responses have been verified, etc.

We currently leverage this preload; Template:Develop/Original reporting. But I rarely see it used effectively so maybe it's not useable enough, not intuitive, or some combination of both. Tduk and Sheminghui.WU have both done a bit of OR recently and could possibly provide feedback on what they'd find useful.

It would be great if an article's talk page detected {{Original reporting}} in the parent page and rendered an xambox in the talk page suggesting the java script tool to produce the notes. But that would be icing on the cake...

I know that's a lot. But you did ask. ツMichael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 20:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

That would be great and useful. Pinging @Tduk and @Sheminghui.WU to see what they find useful while providing OR notes, and to share any other feedback before we proceed with creating the tool. --Asked42 (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright: I have created an initial version of a form-based interface for adding OR notes. If you are interested, you can try it out and provide feedback on what should be changed, added, or removed.

To test it: first install the script. Then, on your user sandbox, add the template {{Original reporting}} or {{Interview}}. After that, visit the sandbox's talk page and you will see a button called "Provide OR Notes Using Wizard." Clicking it will open a form.

More related fields will appear based on the reporting type you select. The data will be added using {{ORNotes}}. Thank you!

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

-- Asked42 (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

You can also see this example to preview how the {{ORNotes}} template will appear. --Asked42 (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

This example looks professional and well-organized. It effectively differentiates the notes from general conversation in the talk page and it just looks clean and well-done. Thank you! I personally think it would be very helpful when reviewing OR to have the notes presented cleanly and in a standardized manner such as this.

Now that my my wikibreak is over, I am getting caught up on conversations around here and will prioritize installing and testing this script shortly, possibly tomorrow morning, PST timezone.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 20:12, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I installed it and took a look at the interface. Well done! How confident are you to start recommending it to the next OR submission we see pop up in Development?Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 22:06, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright: It is almost ready to be used. For usage, I can add a button on the {{develop}} template; when a user clicks it, they will be redirected to the talk page and the form will open. This way, they don’t need to install the script, and it will only be loaded for them when the button is clicked.

Let me know whether this would be the preferred approach, or if you would rather keep it as it currently is, where users need to install the script manually. --Asked42 (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I like the idea of least resistance, personally.

I wonder if we could also set up a notice or alert associated with the {{Original}} and {{interview}} templates. I could easily set both up to display a message on the article main page while in draft, reminding contributors to add their notes. Do you think that's too much?Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 17:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I think that would be really helpful for the authors as well. For the notice, were you thinking of using {{xambox}} or something else? -- Asked42 (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that or a statement within the {{original reporting}} and {{interview}} templates themselves.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 12:44, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Great!

The script for adding the OR notes is also ready to be used. -- Asked42 (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I was able to do a full run or real-life use of the "Mark as under review" action button of the review template. It places {{Under_review}} with the underscore and EZPR left it behind after I completed the review, presumably due to the presence of the underscore. Otherwise I think everything else worked great.

I tested it on "JPL Slashes 550 Jobs in Fourth Round of NASA Layoffs as Budget Woes Mount" if you need to see the edit history.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I have removed the underscore from the Under Review template. -- Asked42 (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

On {{Tasks/sandbox}}, I have added two actions: one is "Submit for Review" and the other is "Request Assistance", which adds the {{helpneeded}} template to the article. --Asked42 (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

And implemented... 👍Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 19:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Suggest replacing "help abandoned article" with something sounding more newsy. Like "help dig out the hell from the web for a report that was started a second ago" as this is dire needed? More concisely perhaps "Copyedit a news report from our Newsroom now!" Gryllida 12:15, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Partial Reviewing

One of the strength of the things wiki is collaboration. As far as I can see, en.wn has a policy that doesn't really allow for collaborative reviewing - a single reviewer goes through, does the work (which takes a significant time chunk), and eventually passes it (if any has the time to do so before the article gets stale). Would it be useful to think about some way of allowing several reviewers to each do atomic operations which take very little time, but they would leave some marker that "this work has already been done". To be really useful, it'd have to be small things - like "vetted paragraph 1 for style", "checked source #3", "vetted paragraph 2 information with sources", etc. I feel like this would spread out the workload in a better fashion; reviewers could even be qualified to only do parts of those, that way everyone is doing what they are best at. I've come short of presenting a complete solution because I'm sure people with more experience here will have valuable input. Tduk (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Tduk (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, I don't have any experience with reviewing, but speaking as an editor here, I do think this is valuable and could save time for a reviewer. If they can't complete the review, they could leave a public note on the talk page explaining what has been verified and what still needs to be done.

But, since we have very few active reviewers it is also possible that the reviewer simply paused the review and plans to complete it later, maybe the next day or whenever they are free. That is actually quite common. To fully explore this idea, I think it would work best when multiple reviewers are involved in checking the same article. -- Asked42 (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

This is worth discussing. Although it may still be difficult to implement with the current user base, saving one more article means saving one more article in timeliness requirement. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Breaking tasks into slices is not a terrible idea. Just off the top of my head, there would need to be a mechanism that would help reviewers not to trip over one another's actions... If I am doing basic proofreading, what if another editor has major issues with source material. One of our Java-ninjas might have some ideas -- it is worth a look. Again, just first thoughts, maybe the bit of value in only one Reviewer is that person is able to garner an overall "sense" of an article's tone/style/feel (that sort of stuff). For example: Neutrality can be a sticky wicket. If a person is looking at an article from a largely mechanistic viewpoint, they might miss the greater "spirit" of the article. It sounds worthy of a discussion. Good collaboration always helps.--Bddpaux (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I think the best way forward is to really articulate and list what exactly needs to be done for a good review, and then figure out what can be sectioned out or divided up logically. The final reviewer may be looking for neutrality, but it will be nice if someone else can notify them that it has been fact-checked, for instance. Tduk (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I started User:Michael.C.Wright/Review process study/Reviewer lane for exactly that reason. I'm open to others' comments on the document, the review process, and/or what they think can be changed or updated.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 22:55, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Should we comment on that here? Immediately, "Check for Copyright, Newsworthiness, Verifiability, NPOV and Style" should be drastically expanded. I think these can all be separated out. In fact this may be a good place to start! Tduk (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

It's probably best to comment on the talk page there for comments on the document itself. You are welcome to do so.

Regarding "Check for Copyright, Newsworthiness, Verifiability, NPOV, and Style," I view that as flexible to each reviewer’s approach. Some work reductively, removing what doesn’t meet standards. I prefer an integrative approach, fixing what I can and flagging what I can’t, so potential value isn’t lost.

However, you may be on to something; that in those details is where we can trim some fat. I may have time tomorrow to flesh them out more.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 23:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Collaborative reviewing did not exist but collaborative copyediting is supposed to work. Just revising other current drafts. Gryllida 12:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

The new version of the Easy Peer Review gadget has a feature that allows reviewers to do something similar. A reviewer can check specific criteria, write some notes, and save their partial review. Later, if another reviewer starts a review on the same article, they will be notified about the first reviewer's partial review. The new reviewer can then choose to continue from where the previous reviewer left off. --Asked42 (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Just for context, apart from reviewing, another dire problem is that there are hundreds of online users on the wiki who have no clue the Newsroom exists nor what needs to be fixed. How could they get access to Taglet report without needing to install it? Could "withJS" URL parameter be used to make a link to the report? Gryllida 20:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think withJS will work in this case (Taglet) because the script needs to be loaded on multiple pages or at least in the main namespace. If we need to enable it for everyone without requiring installation, we can either make it a default gadget or load it directly in MediaWiki:Common.js. -- Asked42 (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Just wishing and hoping

I've been thinking about this for a bit now. I wish (maybe around Christmas or just after) -- we could do a combined 'Greatest Hits' of English WN (here or at WMF's site? -- would that be possible?) and an "In Memoriam" thing about noted contributors who've passed on. Something like "Top 100 articles" wrapping around to a micro memorial bit. I wouldn't want the process to bog down in chatter (a thing we're great at) -- maybe a committee? Just pondering -- thoughts?--Bddpaux (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Support Memorial article is wonderful. It will help strengthen community cohesion, culture, and sustainability, and it honors our predecessors. Great! -- Sheminghui.WU (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Support We could use the top articles of each month, as sort of a 'Readers' choice' run-down. If we do it by mid-to-late December, we'll have the top eleven articles of the year based on page-views. Or we could vote for our top articles. Just spitballing ideas.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 22:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

If it works, I fully support it. We need more interaction with readers, not just reporters; it's worth a try. Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Thinking - asking - wondering

Maybe this exists here (and I've missed it) -- and people can get sensitive about AI stuff. But: I wonder if we should make a banner (for certain) articles that notes "AI Assisted Content" or something like that? Just a general thought -- no big deal.--Bddpaux (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I personally don't really think so. Is this works somewhat like a disclaimer? But our community, especially the reviewers, should ensure the grammatical accuracy of the article and, especially, the accuracy of the facts. If there are no problems, whether or not some/most of the AI ​​tools were used is not a big deal, right? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

It might help with transparency. We should be noting use in the talk page as a minimum, as recommended by WN:AI.
I also agree with Sheminghui.WU, that at the end of the day, with a proper and full peer-review it shouldn't matter, as the content should have been verified by an independent reviewer if it's published.
"Environmental protest in Indonesia denounces Australia's plastic waste exports" is an example of an article we've retracted, which contained a significant amount of AI/LLM misuse (based on our proposed AI guideline). Based on that experience, I'd lean towards supporting the new template on published articles for transparency.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 22:24, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I have no objection. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

However, I have a real concern: readers won't like articles labeled with AI, even if the article itself is fine. Whether an article using a small amount of AI tools should be labeled as having AI use is something I think needs to be discussed. One of the appealing aspects of Wikinews is its verifiability and citizen-written content, but seeing an AI label can negatively impact even a reputable brand like Wikimedia. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

This also seems to have a negative impact on our goal of becoming a source of citations.(which enwn has been working for a long time) As technology becomes more widespread and irresistible, things may change, but it is reasonable to have such concerns now. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps if the goal is to become a source for citations, it would make sense to clearly mark the articles for which it will be true - and have some pieces more "editorial" in nature. Tduk (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea. In fact, Russian and Chinese Wikinews have conducted similar experiments, but our(their) contributor community is still too small. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

OR Wizard

There is a new tool available that is created to provide Original Reporting Notes through a form based interface (idea proposed by @Michael.C.Wright). It takes inputs and adds the OR notes using the {{ORNotes}} template on the article's talk page. If anyone is interested, you can try out the tool by clicking the button below. You will be redirected to the sandbox talk page, and a form will open.

Please suggest any improvements or modifications if you are interested, and let us know whether we should consider using it for OR notes.

Test OR Wizard (Update (22-11-2025): This button will not work.)

-- Asked42 (talk) 07:18, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Looks good, more efficient than Scoop. I'll try it next time I have an Original Report (maybe in a few days)! ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify, any sensitive or non-public information should be submitted through Scoop, not the OR Wizard. The OR Wizard posts its content publicly on the talk page.

@Asked42, perhaps we should add that note directly in the tool.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 22:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, that's what we should do. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the OR Wizard only adds a note on the talk page such as "Private notes have been sent to Scoop or emailed to a reviewer" for private submissions. I will add this clarification on the form itself. --Asked42 (talk) 07:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Can someone explain [3] this comment which appears to be saying not to use scoop? Tduk (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Update: I think I am managing too many scripts at this point, so I need to prioritize the more important ones. Currently, this one does not seem to be widely needed or in high demand. Therefore I am dropping this idea for now. If you try this in the future, it may or may not work. -- Asked42 (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Toward a new minor paradigm

This is an open poll listed on the Water cooler and Wikinews:Polls. Please remove the {{poll}} flag when the poll closes. Please discuss your poll ideas with the community before polling, and don't vote on everything as voting is evil.

First: this is not really a MAJOR proposal -- I'm just spitballing an idea here - little more. This has been on my mind for a little while now. I have (since my earliest days) been a lover of short articles. I love short fiction (not the same thing, mind you) -- and I've always thought this format/world is perfectly primed for short articles. To that end, here is my very loose idea: I have thought that we might have some sort of section/segment/area here where we might have the English WN form of what might be considered "News Briefs". "Quick News", "News Shorts", "Fast News", "Newslines"-- I don't know, just off the top of my head. Essentially, the submitter would START their article with that in mind -- that would be the beginning of an article. e.g. "A busload of students struck and embankment in yada-ya on Monday. Three students suffered minor injuries and have been released from hospital." Absolute MAX of 3 sentences. With a hair of proper sourcing, we could publish that quickly -- BUT the idea would be the contributor then develops that into a full blown article. I think we could make this work. We have struggled horribly for many years on developing/retaining reporters here. They come here, get an article or two published, then get an article or two rejected: then vanish; major issue here for a long time. This might help impact that in a positive way. I am fully open to thoughts. It might require minor code ninja help, frankly: not sure about that. Please share your thoughts here.--Bddpaux (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Support as long as we maintain protection against focal event creep. We could even allow them to evolve into semi-live-update pages on a hot topic, keeping them open for editing, possibly indefinitely.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Support: I like the idea of brief news. But I assume it would be a separate segment or a separate project, rather than a regular article directly. Of course, if someone wants to create a full-fledged article from a brief item, they can certainly do that.

If I imagine how it could look, maybe it would be similar to en:w:Portal:Current events, but formatted more like wikinews?

And if we create a segment like this, I think it would also be good to display it somewhere on the main page. -- Asked42 (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Question - How would the later development the user does for the article be reviewed? How is it guaranteed that whatever is added still adheres to the strict standards people apply at initial review? In other words, I must be missing something, and will support once someone points out what it is. Tduk (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

With flagged revisions, once an article is published there can be essentially two versions of the same article; one stable when published, and one with pending changes. Only logged-in users can see pending changes, so bots, crawlers, etc, that don't log in don't have access to unsighted, pending changes.

We could change our archive policy or amend it for these briefs/shorts/snippets to say they aren't archived or protected or are at a much later date. As they are amended/edited/updated, those changes can be reviewed, I assume in some sort of perpetuity, on a rolling basis. We already do it in the first 24-hours post publication.

This would mean that reviewers would have to keep an eye on the list of pending changes (which is currently not effectively managed). We could implement some template for the talk page like edit requests, but call them re-review requests or sight requests or whatever.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 23:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain how publishing a fresh article that is one sentence long that is updated a week later to have several paragraphs would be different from simply publishing that multi paragraph article as a week-old stale article? Tduk (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, this is a loose idea. What I am hoping for (in a perfect world) is the original writer would do the 'brief' (or whatever term we use) -- ideally, 2 - 3 sentences. Then, come back a day or two later and "finish" that item -- such that it meets at least 100 words. Still germinating this idea. The 7-day window most probably would not shift on the whole package.--Bddpaux (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

You didn't in any way answer my question, was it confusing somehow? I'm asking what is gained by doing it this way versus outright publishing the finished article anew after a week. Anyone who sees the stub articles and reads them won't know to come back in a week, after which it's stale anyway, and you've made your attitude clear on stale content, so what is gained? Tduk (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bddpaux I am still waiting for feedback on this. Tduk (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Some interesting commentary here. My further thoughts: I have this thing (in my brain) that we could publish some quick thing from the contributor (quickly!) and then they would later come back and essentially complete what they started. I also am not suggesting publishing ANYTHING 8 days after the fact (although Michael suggested - I think - being able to update the article for a long time)...that could prove potentially interesting. Going beyond all that: I may be guilty of over-thinking this! In another century, we did this 'News Briefs' and 'Shorts' thing. It might be a lot of fun to do a HUGE project re-launch along those lines. Just pondering...--Bddpaux (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear enough in my question. What is the complete publishing paradigm you envision? How would people who read the "brief" version know to find the completed version later? What is gained by having it this way? What is the timeline looking like exactly? It's very hard to understand what you mean without specifics as far as what the outcome would be and what changes are involved. Tduk (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Considering our readers, the benefit might not be there. So: that part is worthy of consideration. My larger focus here is retention of contributors. Example: One user I was looking at yesterday, contributed roughly 10 articles this year -- 1 was published, the rest failed publication. I also think a massive overhaul of our Main page might be of value -- we can use that page's layout to calibrate or re-calibrate visitors' collective focus. I don't suggest (except when a notable interview happens AND functions as the focal event of an article) changing anything around here in terms of fresh vs. stale. Probably my whole: "Write 3 sentences, then come back 2 days later and write 6 more"- thing probably won't work. When anyone here works, and their output fails publication -- I hate to see that happen. I don't like it one bit. I am largely focused on the "reward" of seeing one's work get published here combined with training/retaining reporters at this place. I think I am going to spend some time looking at our News Briefs/Shorts section here to learn a bit more about that and see if something comes up. I've seen a lot of people come and go here. We don't have a very good system for measuring "Why did you go away?" Just trying to consider some new ideas/paradigm at this place.--Bddpaux (talk) 14:29, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I think having a ui to write the new story in 2 clicks (new story, fill a form, click add) would help. "Enter title, text, 2 sources".

Currently is too hard, go somewhere, type page title, click go, type content, click save, type summary, click save. TOO MANY STEPS. Gryllida 12:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that assessment. Let me dig a little on the old News Briefs/News Shorts thing we had a long time ago. And -- as I said before (in full disclosure) I do have a bias in favor of short articles. Give me a bit of time and I will report back here later.--Bddpaux (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I think a positive take-away from this idea is just to encourage very short articles, leaving out many extraneous details people seem to make. If we encourage one-paragraph articles that would help. _and_ now that I think about it, allowing "expansion" articles which are published as separate, linked article a few days later may be a very logical way to go about getting the basics of your idea into something more easy to perceive (at least to me). Does this seem to line up, for you? This way, the published articles don't get changed. Tduk (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

To make sure I understand you here; you disagree with the proposed "the contributor then develops that [short or brief] into a full blown article." and instead prefer the short articles to remain as-is, archived as a single paragraph, and any new development on the focal event happens in a new and separate article. Is that correct?Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 17:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

That is correct. It seems to be clearer what is happening from a reader's viewpoint. Tduk (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

We have something similar onw:n:ja:短信:2025年/11月/30日. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Please read this small update
What is found here: Wikinews:Briefs/June 1, 2006 is actually a near perfect representation of what I have in mind (it's quite old). But, please note -- The headline on the short is linked to the 'real' article. The headings are even geographically-oriented. That is what I was leaning toward. Maybe (haven't looked at dates -- note that), the beginning was the real article and then someone aggregated that stuff into a long page of Briefs? Not sure.
In a perfect world: It would operate the other way around. The contributor would start with around 3 sentences, which is published ("Brief" or "Short" or whatever)and then the "real" article would follow. (I have fallen out of love with that, somewhat, as I am hesitant to believe people would do 18% of an article and come back and do the other 82% in the near-term). I am still thinking and pondering on this stuff. Maybe (just pondering) brand new people could ONLY write a brief? Then (after 30 days/4 briefs) could 'graduate' into writing full articles? I will have to ponder that and we'd need to think about that. I am gathering thoughts/making notes etc. I want to do at least a medium-scale proposal on the idea AND I think we should start with something kind of small. Full disclosure: I want it to be easy for new people to come here -- do some small good things and see their name 'in lights' fairly quickly. If we have the next Pulitzer god/goddess walk in the door, I am hesitant to tell them: You only get 40 words for the next 2 months! BUT: Maybe that "box" would help them to focus on knocking out a few tight sentences and how to source correctly. Please share thoughts. This is a work-in-progress.--Bddpaux (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Support Not bad. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Support I do mark short articles at 'not ready' relatively frequently when they don't meet our 100 word minimum. This could be a way to get 'points on the board' and we have already seen when publication increases, so too does other activity. They'd theoretically be quicker/easier to review.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 13:37, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Support. Gryllida 13:43, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

If thats presented to users as "brief", then the full one is presented as "report", yes? Gryllida 14:00, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Well: remember, this is still pinging around inside my head. The perfect flow (whatever flows perfectly around this project??) would be -- the contributor pushes out a 'Short' and then (using most of that) builds up the "real" article to full length. The "short" won't vanish -- it just lives in another place. Honestly: I think we could (should) maybe roll this out in Phases (1,2,3,4) -- but can hardly event tell you what phases 3 and 4 would event look like right now.--Bddpaux (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't oppose the idea. But it does sound like we're simply lowering our minimum length requirements. We already can (and do) perform the rest of it, I believe, such as with New York judge rules terrorism charges legally insufficient in Mangione case. Each previous article is linked in the 'Related news' section. Maybe I'm missing something.

Are you suggesting that the short and the full both share the same focal event, and both are developed and published within the 5-7 day WN:Freshness window? Do we do anything with a short that never successfully gets an associated full published?Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 16:00, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

You're on the right track -- and yes. One is "9% of the story" and the other is "the remaining 91% of the story". I am still mulling the mechanics of that, and I want all of that to be simple/minimalist in its design. For this to be the training/recruitment/retention tool I imagine, we have to allow wiggle room to not get upset by the full article never being successfully pushed out (it will probably happen sometimes). I love our "strings" of related news and I'm not suggesting getting rid of any of that (we, honestly, should even [in a spirit of evergreen content] try to move on something in that arena); but that is "This thing happened on Monday" and here is a bulleted list of "This thing happened the day before and then this thing happened before that thing and this other thing happened before that thing"-style. That is no crime and would not go away. I am largely just focused on getting their name "in lights" quickly and with some close guidance/involvement.--Bddpaux (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

CommentI am working on a big "white paper" of sorts on this whole larger idea, which I will post here very soon.--Bddpaux (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Memorial Banner

This is an open poll listed on the Water cooler and Wikinews:Polls. Please remove the {{poll}} flag when the poll closes. Please discuss your poll ideas with the community before polling, and don't vote on everything as voting is evil.

I think it is appropriate to post this in terms of seeking consensus. I'd considered maybe a User Box -- but veered off toward this instead. "Lesser" awards -- we're a bit loose on creating/using those, but this is more serious. This would serve as maybe a banner on the User Page of contributors who are deceased. I am fully open to comments or whatever -- or anyone can tweak things if they desire. Personally, I hope we can reach consensus by (roughly) the end of the year. Don't want to rush on this -- I want everyone to have their say. Please vote accordingly below the banner.--Bddpaux (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

In Memoriam This contributor has passed on to the ethereal Newsroom. This memorial is posted here to honor their contributions to English Wikinews.

Bddpaux (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Support I think a more muted color might be more fitting. But that's a personal preference and does not impact my support for it.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 18:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

CommentSoftening up the green, per Michael's comment.--Bddpaux (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Support: Indeed. -- Asked42 (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Support Of course, I fully support establishing it. --Sheminghui.WU (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Support I am fine with having this. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Support Gryllida 12:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

CommentI'm going to take action on this soon.--Bddpaux (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Newsletter proposal

Hello, someone familiar with API, suggest to write

• Wikinews:Newsletter/1

Could we please effort to complete the page if it is considered a acceptable idea.

Could it be possible to ask other wikis to write same newsletters, also, maybe one could link to others for other languages or compile one in English which summarizes for all wikis. cc @Asked42 @Koavf for statistics for this one and not sure who can reach to other wikis.

Many thanks. Gryllida 03:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

As for similar newsletters, w:en:WP:SIGNPOST, d:Wikidata:Status updates, and there's also f:'s newsletter, posted at (e.g.) f:Wikifunctions:Project_chat#Wikifunctions_&_Abstract_Wikipedia_Newsletter_#225_is_out:_First_round_of_voting_for_naming_the_wiki_for_abstract_content_closed;_Calling_for_Wiktionary_functions;_Embedded_Wikifunctions_on_Bengali_Wikipedia_and_seven_more_Wiktionaries. Plus, there are updates at outreach: like outreach:GLAM/Newsletter and various ones at m:Category:Newsletters. I recall similar ones on some editions of Wiktionary (fr.wikt?). There are other general news pages on en.wv, en.wikt, and incubator, but they are published irregularly. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Cool! Could they be consolidated from various language editions to a "Wikinews report", "Wiktionary report", etc at Meta, where users can follow them. One per project or one per language, not sure what is better. Gryllida 13:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, you'd like me to help update this for publication by December 15? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes please update it if you can Gryllida 13:44, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Support if this can be done by a non-flagged (non-reviewer, non-admin) contributor. We already have many required tasks not being performed by reviewers and admin such as reviews, archival, edit requests, etc.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 13:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I think admins or reviewers can work on this in background to other tasks... Gryllida 13:46, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

If an admin or reviewer is required to complete a newsletter, I do not support it. It is a new task being added to two roles that are already not being fully satisfied. We have three months' worth of articles that need to be archived. We have 229 pending changes that need sighted. We have 12 pages marked for speedy deletion. We have 10 open edit requests. We have 2 articles pending review. We have multiple delete and undelete requests open. If those tasks aren't already being done "in background" I don't see how adding an additional task helps.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Heh.. I am not doing any of those in background, too bored. Only working on 'new' pieces. Maybe on Christmas Gryllida 08:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Modification to sitenotice, re: recommendation to archive all editions of Wikinews

I took the bold action to update our site banner to tell everyone that visits that the Sister Projects Task Force has officially recommended archiving all editions of Wikinews and next steps are pending the Board. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:56, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Just saying but I think people will head in the other direction sorry to say.... @Koavf BigKrow (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't like how it looks at all... BigKrow (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm happy to accept an alternative proposal. What do you think is better? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Focus on tone please if you can, thanks. @Koavf BigKrow (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Reworded. Better now? Gryllida 08:09, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

So much better, thank you @Gryllida

And thanks for listening @Koavf BigKrow (talk) 12:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Correct. --Sheminghui.WU (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

The effort is nice —- but… y’know. What’s done is done. I am sad as anyone might be, but: sometimes, things are just finished. I have a nose for, “When we want your opinion, we’ll give it to you.” —-and my nose is tingling rather severely. —Bddpaux (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

That's a fact; the board didn't make a final decision, and the outcome could still be better. We've won the majority of community opinion, so you don't have to participate in any meta discussions, but we don't need to say anything discouraging here. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Only one remark/question for now: is there no alternative at all for a Wikinews relaunch? (That is, not integrating it into Wikipedia - I'd even still prefer archiving the whole project over making it a part of WP.) De Wikischim (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

If this project is entirely shuttered, the proposal above is amenable to m:Wikinews Pulse. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:59, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Do you think the project will be closed down? Lofi Gurl (talk) 02:25, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I do. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:35, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Lofi Gurl I disagree with phrase 'closed down'. I anticipate the effort for Wikinews:Migration will work for some time and there will be a space to write news with same admins running the site - with possibly more flexibility to develop adequate tooling for the wiki. Gryllida 09:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Miraheze

We should make a Miraheze now, maybe get new contribs? BigKrow (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

We're still contributing to WN site, aren't we? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Proposed to change site notice

Suggest a few changes

1) on taglet report page add a link to leave a feedback/comment, which goes to technical water cooler

2) make a page about Taglet for dummies like

1) add (this) to (your commons.js)

2) load (report link)

3) tag pages which aren't tagged

4) copyedit articles which are already tagged and need a rewrite

with a screenshot included and no other text, mainly this should fit a screen without scrolling

3) then post it to site notice as the only message for a week and see if there are any new users who are going to help out Gryllida 20:50, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Support —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Support BigKrow (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I made Wikinews:Article triage and swore profusely as I don't remember where the site notice is. Good luck. I have to disappear for around 15 hours. :-( Gryllida 04:28, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Sitenotice. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I was adding a space which isn't there. "Message of the week: please help with triaging new articles now.". Would this work? Gryllida 05:17, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Love it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Done Gryllida 05:24, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Extra point if 'withJS' starts to work again and users don't need to install things. Gryllida 05:24, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Coding to help wikinews

https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/67187a8b-1dd4-44c7-b5b1-9c7621782135 BigKrow (talk) 08:04, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright, @Gryllida test it maybe it can help? BigKrow (talk) 08:05, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Did it work? BigKrow (talk) 08:11, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

BigKrow (talk) 08:17, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

1. !/usr/bin/env python3

"""

Wikinews Image Insertion Generator

Generates properly formatted wikitext for inserting Wikimedia Commons images

"""

def generate_wikinews_image(filename, caption, author, license="",

alignment="right", size="250px", thumb=True):

"""

Generate Wikinews-formatted image wikitext

Args:

filename: Name of the file on Wikimedia Commons (e.g., "Example.jpg")

caption: Description of the image

author: Name of the photographer/creator

license: License type (e.g., "CC BY-SA 4.0", "Public Domain")

alignment: Image alignment - "right", "left", "center", or "none"

size: Image width (e.g., "250px", "300px")

thumb: Whether to use thumbnail format (True/False)

Returns:

Formatted wikitext string

"""

# Build the wikitext components

parts = [f"File:{filename}"]

if thumb:

parts.append("thumb")

if alignment and alignment != "none":

parts.append(alignment)

if size:

parts.append(size)

# Build attribution

attribution = f"(Image: {author}"

if license:

attribution += f", {license}"

attribution += ")"

# Combine caption with attribution

full_caption = f"{caption} {attribution}"

parts.append(full_caption)

return "".join(parts) + ""

def generate_batch_images(image_list):

"""

Generate multiple image insertions from a list

Args:

image_list: List of dicts with keys: filename, caption, author, license, alignment, size

Returns:

String with all formatted images separated by newlines

"""

results = []

for img in image_list:

wikitext = generate_wikinews_image(

filename=img.get('filename', ),

caption=img.get('caption', ),

author=img.get('author', ),

license=img.get('license', ),

alignment=img.get('alignment', 'right'),

size=img.get('size', '250px')

)

results.append(wikitext)

return "\n\n".join(results)

1. Example usage

if __name__ == "__main__":

print("=== Single Image Example ===")

single = generate_wikinews_image(

filename="Climate_Protest_2024.jpg",

caption="Environmental activists march through downtown demanding climate action.",

author="Jane Doe",

license="CC BY-SA 4.0",

alignment="right",

size="300px"

)

print(single)

print("\n")

print("=== Batch Images Example ===")

images = [

{

'filename': 'City_Hall_Meeting.jpg',

'caption': 'City council members debate the new housing policy.',

'author': 'John Smith',

'license': 'CC BY 3.0',

'alignment': 'right',

'size': '250px'

},

{

'filename': 'Election_Results.png',

'caption': 'Final vote tallies displayed on the screen.',

'author': 'Sarah Johnson / Wikimedia Commons',

'license': 'CC BY-SA 4.0',

'alignment': 'center',

'size': '400px'

},

{

'filename': 'Press_Conference.jpg',

'caption': 'The mayor addresses reporters following the announcement.',

'author': 'Robert Lee',

'license': 'Public Domain',

'alignment': 'left',

'size': '280px'

}

]

batch = generate_batch_images(images)

print(batch)

print("\n")

print("=== Interactive Mode ===")

print("Enter image details (or press Enter to skip):")

print()

filename = input("Filename (e.g., Example.jpg): ").strip()

if filename:

caption = input("Caption: ").strip()

author = input("Author name: ").strip()

license = input("License (optional): ").strip()

alignment = input("Alignment (right/left/center) [right]: ").strip() or "right"

size = input("Size (e.g., 250px) [250px]: ").strip() or "250px"

result = generate_wikinews_image(filename, caption, author, license, alignment, size)

print("\n=== Generated Wikitext ===")

print(result) BigKrow (talk) 08:18, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

@Asked42 BigKrow (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Discord for Wikinews server

BigKrow (talk) 08:58, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikinews English Edition Discord Server Setup Guide

Initial Server Creation

Step 1: Create the Server

Open Discord and click the "+" button in your server list

Select "Create My Own"

Choose "For a club or community"

Name it "Wikinews English Edition" or "Wikinews EN"

Upload the Wikinews logo as the server icon (download from wikinews.org)

Step 2: Server Description

Add this to Server Settings → Overview:

Official/Unofficial community Discord for Wikinews English edition contributors, readers, and supporters. Discuss current events, collaborate on articles, and connect with fellow citizen journalists.

Channel Structure

📋 Information Category

1. welcome - Welcome message, server rules, links to Wikinews
2. rules - Detailed community guidelines
3. announcements - Important updates (restrict posting to moderators)
4. resources - Links to style guides, policies, and helpful tools

💬 General Category

1. general - General discussion
2. introductions - New member introductions
3. off-topic - Non-Wikinews conversation

📰 Wikinews Category

1. article-discussion - Discuss ongoing and published articles
2. story-ideas - Propose new article topics
3. review-requests - Request article reviews
4. collaboration - Coordinate on multi-author pieces
5. breaking-news - Alert about developing stories

🛠️ Contribution Category

1. help-desk - Get help with editing, formatting, policies
2. technical-support - Wiki software and technical issues
3. translations - Coordinate translation efforts

🎯 Meta Category

1. feedback - Server feedback and suggestions
2. moderator-contact - Private channel for contacting mods

Role Setup

Administrative Roles

@Admin - Full server permissions

@Moderator - Manage messages, members, kick/ban

Contributor Roles

@Wikinews Administrator - Verified Wikinews admins

@Accredited Reporter - Verified accredited reporters

@Active Contributor - Regular article contributors

@Contributor - Has published at least one article

@Reader - Default role for community members

Special Roles

@Bot - For Discord bots

@Muted - Temporary mute for rule violations

Server Rules

Create a comprehensive rules channel with:

Be respectful and civil - No harassment, hate speech, or personal attacks

Follow Wikinews policies - Maintain neutrality, cite sources, respect copyright

No spam or self-promotion - Keep content relevant to Wikinews

Verify credentials appropriately - Don't impersonate Wikinews staff or accredited reporters

Protect privacy - Don't share personal information without consent

Use appropriate channels - Keep discussions organized

No illegal content - Absolutely no illegal content or activities

English primary - Keep main channels in English (can create language-specific channels if needed)

Respect Discord ToS - Follow all Discord Terms of Service

Assume good faith - Approach disagreements constructively

Moderation Setup

AutoMod Configuration

Filter common slurs and inappropriate language

Prevent spam (repeated messages, excessive caps, mass mentions)

Block suspicious links and known phishing domains

Require account age minimum (7-14 days recommended)

Useful Bots

MEE6 or Dyno - Moderation, auto-roles, logging

Carl-bot - Reaction roles, moderation tools

Wikinews RSS Bot - Auto-post new articles from Wikinews RSS feed

Verification System

Setting Up Verification

Create a #verification channel (read-only except for reactions)

Use a reaction role bot for self-verification

Post verification message explaining how to get the @Reader role

Contributor Verification

For users claiming to be active Wikinews contributors:

Ask them to link their Wikinews user page

Have them add a note on their Wikinews user page mentioning their Discord username

Grant appropriate role (@Contributor, @Active Contributor, etc.)

Server Settings

Moderation Settings

Verification Level: Medium (verified email required)

Explicit Content Filter: Scan messages from all members

2FA Requirement: Required for moderators

Community Settings

Enable Community Server features

Set up welcome screen with rules and key channels

Enable member screening with rules acceptance

Permissions

Restrict @everyone from posting in announcement channels

Allow @Contributor and above to embed links and attach files

Create private mod channels invisible to regular members

Launch Preparation

Before Going Public

Test all channels and permissions with a small group

Set up logging bot to track moderation actions

Create a mod handbook with response guidelines

Draft welcome message and pin in #welcome

Set up RSS feed for new Wikinews articles

Create invite links with appropriate expiration settings

Initial Announcement

Post on Wikinews talk pages, water cooler, and relevant WikiProjects to invite the community.

Ongoing Management

Regular Tasks

Monitor channels daily for rule violations

Update pinned messages in channels as needed

Review and respond to feedback

Coordinate with Wikinews community on major decisions

Back up important discussions and decisions

Growth Strategy

Engage with new members in #introductions

Highlight quality discussions and collaborations

Host occasional events (writing sprints, Q&As)

Cross-promote with Wikinews social media

This guide is designed for creating a community Discord server for Wikinews contributors and readers. Ensure compliance with Discord's Terms of Service and Wikinews community guidelines. BigKrow (talk) 08:58, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the constant pinging but I thought it could help. @Michael.C.Wright BigKrow (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I believe there is already a Discord server for en.WN but I'm not sure how much it is used or how effectively. My concern is that off-wiki coordination isn’t transparent to the project and can work against consensus-building. Participation becomes limited to whoever uses those platforms, and can encourage small, informal groups to form outside the on-wiki process. My experience with off-wiki spaces, IRC in particular, is that they often (and rapidly) become unproductive and dominated by a small number of voices, which makes genuine collaboration more difficult.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:43, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

This might be an interesting read: Digital Spaces // Topical Neighborhoods. In particular, the Top High-Level Takeaways section has this gem:

The best-functioning Wikiprojects are distinct: the most “effective” ones are characterized by egalitarian communication between members and “unstructured collaboration”.

I’ve noticed that when discussions become centralized around a small number of dominant voices, especially off-wiki, it can create a sense of hierarchy that discourages broader participation and undermines consensus-building. This is one of the reasons I prefer on-wiki communication, where transparency and egalitarian collaboration are easier to maintain.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:59, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from. Thank you for your input. @Michael.C.Wright BigKrow (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @BigKrow, see https://discord.gg/PkSgYAnPw . Gryllida 10:09, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Claude AI is very helpful for coding

Just a heads-up Claude AI works wonders with coding etc. BigKrow (talk) 12:25, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Maybe @Asked42 would be a guide to them. BigKrow (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Proposed change to review process by Gryllida Version 202512

Hello,

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:

I am proposing following changes.

1. Relax review requirement. Only check for: copyright, event date. Do not require, and add a banner at page top, for following issues: npov, accuracy of presented information, formatting; in the banner note that revision was requested.

Please comment below what you think. Gryllida 10:07, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

It appears that whatever template you are using to generate these responses with pings does not accurately ping the first few people. The usernames RocerballAustralia, Michael.C.Wright, and Bddpaux all link to your user page, seemingly pinging you and not the intended individuals.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:03, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

fixed Gryllida 23:17, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Question I want to be sure I understand the intent. If reviewers are no longer expected to check for accuracy or neutrality, does this proposal accept that articles may be published with factual inaccuracies or bias? If so, that would fundamentally change what “review” means on Wikinews, and it’s not clear why the role would remain necessary.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:08, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Michael.C.Wright

• Oh I will fix it, that is so weird.
• The intent is that reviewer still CHECKS for these remaining issues (npov, inaccuracies, formattting, etc) but does not use them to FAIL (not ready) the story. It still gets published, with a warning on top. The reviewer may also choose not to check, in which case the banner at the page will say "npov was not checked" instead of "npov is an issue".
• Note that if this is appoved and proceeds, inventives will need to be created to motivate users to fix these remaining issues. This will be easier than now, because I expect users will wish to stay rather than walk away after first few failures. I expect 10 or 100 times more active userbase than now; with majority possessing interest in quality and looking around (hence the requirement, proposed below, for each article to include a comment from the reporter about what they would do for OR if they had an opportunity: this makes the users think about digging around for more information about the event.)

• Competitions or a quota on number of unpolished stories could be creates for example "to get your stuff published you need at least get one story fully polished, per month", or something, to avoid making Wikinews low quality. This may be discussed later after publishing goes a bit up and at least a few articles a day are published.

Regards, Gryllida 22:12, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

One question: if an article is allowed to be published with issues such as NPOV problems or inaccuracies, and the author does not correct the issues after publication as per reviewer's note, then what happens in such a case? Will the article remain published with those inaccuracies, or will it be unpublished? -- Asked42 (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

remain published. after 24 hours if needed, can add correction. Gryllida 23:19, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I’m still unclear on the intent — the proposal text says review would only check copyright and event date, but your clarification suggests reviewers would still check accuracy and neutrality without failing articles for problems there. If this means we would knowingly publish articles with inaccuracies or bias (even with a banner), I can’t support that, because it changes what “review” and “published” mean on Wikinews. I’d rather try alternatives that increase publication without weakening accuracy — e.g., delayed full archival, more post-publication cleanup, and inline citations — and evaluate results after a short trial period.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 18:03, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Check copyright and newsworthiness. The result for additional issues is either "pass" or "not pass but i published anyway, pls fix now" or "dunno, did not check but published anyway, fix whatever you want". Gryllida 18:25, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Oppose "not pass but i published anyway" is unacceptable to me and "dunno, did not check but published anyway" is not a review.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 18:37, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

There was some time when reviews did not even exist and there were 50 articles published every day, quite to a high standard in fact because many users are available to cross check. I maintain my intent that having a article published with a lower standard is not necessarily being doomed to hell and may work well. And after some increase in activity the standard may be tightened again however first to require npov and only then requiring 100% verifuable content as thats significantly more laborious. Gryllida 18:41, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I doubt "delayed full archival, more post-publication cleanup, and inline citations" are helpful, they do not solve issue that it takes forever for an author to perfectly fix an article when there are only 2-3 users around at best... Gryllida 18:27, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Acagastya Gryllida 22:22, 21 December 2025 (UTC) (UTC)

2. Request authors that each news article includes an attempt at OR, either from a user directly or through asking an accredited reporter to forward a request to someone. These attempts will not always work. But they sometimes it will. The software should ask the user to answer a question like "If you wanted to reach out to someone to request additional information, which is not available in existing sources, who would it be and what would you ask? Please detail below."

I hope this would not compromise integrity of the site and would improve newcomer engagement as their stories are published.

Please comment below what you think. Gryllida 10:07, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

• As to item #2, I would recommend against imposing additional burdens upon authors such as trying to add original reporting to every article. Even mainstream newspapers publish articles every day taken 100% from the Associated Press or other wire services without adding original reporting to them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

  They don"t have to do it, they just could (optionally) comment what OR they wish would have been done. I would suggest to present that question when submitting for review. If they dont want to, they can leave answer blank. This means another volunteer can do that OR. Would you find this useful? Gryllida 03:31, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Please add Perplexity to AI tools

Thank you as i use it quite often. @Gryllida @Michael.C.Wright BigKrow (talk) 12:17, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Limit the FlaggedRevs extension to the article namespace?

Regarding the FlaggedRevs extension in this project, I would like to propose both of the following:

1. We limit the namespace to only 0 (article namespace), since other namespaces are not considered to be reader material.
2. Set $wgFlaggedRevsHandleIncludes to 0 ($wgFlaggedRevsHandleIncludes = 0), which should no longer allow FlaggedRevs to detect the stable version of templates in articles, if available.

I have done a similar proposal months ago on English Wikibooks. Thoughts? Codename Noreste (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I like the idea. I'd like to see what other, more technical folks have to say before officially supporting it. We may also benefit from waiting until en.WB completes their change to see what issues they run into in the process.

We would need to organize a small project team to go through all templates and deal with unsighted changes before the config change, to ensure unsighted changes aren't either lost or auto-sighted, depending on how the process handles unsighted changes.

We also are waiting for the WMF Board to announce their decision on the recommendation to close all Wikinews. There would be no sense in doing the work if they are closing the project.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:23, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

If there is a plan to migrate the wiki to new hosting, then any last minute changes would also be migrated. Gryllida 19:22, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikibooks has already done this. Codename Noreste (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah and what was their motivation? Gryllida 20:24, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

On English Wikibooks, we wanted to limit FlaggedRevs to article content namespaces, and it worked, but not before we also had to implement $wgFlaggedRevsHandleIncludes = 0 too. Codename Noreste (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I did not understand why. Gryllida 16:40, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Codename Noreste, what is the motivation for these two proposed changes? What would they improve? Gryllida 19:21, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

For WM 25 years-old birthday

Happy Newyear! Any ideas for Wikimedia's 25th anniversary and Wikinews birthday this year? Celebration? 15 January ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 09:35, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

":o" hmm Gryllida 09:38, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Incidentally, the Chinese Wikinews community has decided to celebrate, but hasn't come up with any good ideas yet. Our current thought is that we might interview few active Wikireporters or publish a brief congratulatory message.. Like we always do ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

it would be good if there was some online meetup to catch up and/or share a story each. i tried to organise one but i lost the doodle link. Gryllida 10:19, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Its a good idea of course. How about just using a google meeting or something? Should we make this a formal online meeting, like Wikipedia Community sometimes did?

By the we, we can also organise an offline meeting one day. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I could use whatever platform as I am in google, matrix, discord, telegram, mumble, jitsi, sip, pretty much you name it and i am there and also irc. someone should take care of time zones though. my time zone is Australia/Sydney and i am usually in a noisy environment, and, to make it worse, unfortunately i am chronically bad at keeping any recount of availability of others. Gryllida 10:49, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I honestly don't think an online meetup would be possible at this point (we don't currently have enough human resources). Also, around this time Wikipedia is celebrating its 25th anniversary, so I think many editors will be attending the online celebrations planned by the WMF.

One idea could be for WN's, to create a central documentation page (possibly on Meta?) where we can share our stories with Wikinews, how we discovered the project, how we started editing, and how we have seen the project change for better or worse over time. Essentially, a place to share our experiences with Wikinews. This could also serve as a historical page, in my opinion, if Wikinews ends up being archived. -- Asked42 (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

> create a central documentation page (possibly on Meta?) where we can share our stories with Wikinews, how we discovered the project, how we started editing, and how we have seen the project change for better or worse over time.

I'd support that.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 17:26, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Thats on my user page. Gryllida 18:45, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I support this. We need to tell Wikinews stories well. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

• This isn't Wikinews's 25th birthday week; it's Wikipedia's. Wikipedia began operation on January 15, 2001; see History of Wikipedia. Wikinews didn't start until 2004. If Wikinews makes it to 2029, we can celebrate then. If we want to celebrate this month, we can join in a celebration of Wikipedia Day for WP's 25th anniversary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

  True. Can we consider it as 25years anniversary for whole Wikimedia movement? and maybe we can still create a page or something.

  By the way, it's close to 20th anniversary for zhwn, maybe that's why I made a mistake. Sheminghui.WU (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

  And maybe we can still celebrate Wikinews birthday for this year, because its an important year foe us Sheminghui.WU (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

So happy birthday Wikipedia. For my timezone. Sheminghui.WU (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Proposal to ban usage of AI at Wikinews

From Wikinews:Deletion_requests#c-Michael.C.Wright-20260107193100-Israeli_naval_ships_intercept_Gaza-bound_Global_Sumud_Flotilla there is a note from @Ternera "I would even go so far as to propose that we block all AI articles on this wiki.". I agree with this proposal in short term. In long term I think it would be good to allow it after some reliable workflow is developed. BigKrow may be interested in this discussion. Gryllida 21:51, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Votes

• Support noting this is for short term only and further effort could be undertaken to see what went wrong and how it could be addressed. Gryllida 21:51, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

  I'm unsure about this right now BigKrow (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

  Support, gonna get banned anyway BigKrow (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

  Hi @BigKrow what would you think of requirement 'ai involved articles are in beta phrase, and are only allowed to be written for events which happened on first day of the month'? or some other random blanket rule that leads to effort managing ai generated content as a beta stage only and not every day. then maybe some understanding could be reached how to use ai more efficiently. please let me know, thanks. Gryllida 13:26, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

  im just so used to using AI I personally enjoy it and I think it helps in some ways to news stories. @Gryllida BigKrow (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, short term. When AI gets better or we have more manpower etc., we of course gonna use it. But not for now Sheminghui.WU (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

  Hi @Sheminghui.WU, what would you think of requirement 'ai involved articles are in beta phrase, and are only allowed to be written for events which happened on first day of the month'? or some other random blanket rule that leads to effort managing ai generated content as a beta stage only and not every day. then maybe some understanding could be reached how to use ai more efficiently. please let me know, thanks. Gryllida 13:26, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support a ban on AI generated news pieces. I'm not seeing how it provides value since anyone can ask AI to summarize a news article. Plus, the AI model appears to hallucinate and includes false information or bad sources, so it seems like it creates unnecessary work. Ternera (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

  I used AI to help with the following published articles, for just a few examples:

• U.S. strikes Iranian nuclear sites Fordow, Natanz, Isfahan overnight
• NASA revises asteroid 2024 YR4 threat, near-zero chance of Earth impact
• United States sends second aircraft carrier to Middle East, extends ''Truman'' deployment
• Oregon court rules voter-approved gun law constitutional
• US Navy Secretary nominee Phelan outlines readiness, cost-cutting reforms in Senate hearing

I believe they all benefitted from it. I'm not saying they're perfect, but I think they benefitted from AI assistance.

I also use it to check neutrality and balance during reviews and I find it's very helpful in that regard.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 22:59, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Ternera what would you think of requirement 'ai involved articles are in beta phrase, and are only allowed to be written for events which happened on first day of the month'? or some other random blanket rule that leads to effort managing ai generated content as a beta stage only and not every day. then maybe some understanding could be reached how to use ai more efficiently. please let me know, thanks. Gryllida 13:27, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Each instance of AI hallucinations slipping through was either 1. A violation of WN:AI or 2. Should have been caught by the review process, or both. Maybe if we de-flagged reviewers after three AI slip-ups in published articles, we'd catch more of them sooner.
  I think AI should be treated no different than a human editor. That means any hallucinations, which are simply inaccuracies or unsupported statements by another name, are catchable in the review process (but should be caught in the development process). I would imagine if we ban it, we will simply drive its use "underground."
  And to be clear; I'm not advocating for AI-generated articles, but AI-assisted articles.
  I'd prefer that we enforce the full and complete review process. Pseudo-reviews that skip the verification process predictably lead to more corrections and retractions.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 22:38, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I think we have yet to update Wikinews:The use of AI in generating content then approve it either as a policy or a guideline. Codename Noreste (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree. The proposed guideline variously states that humans are responsible for the state of the article.

• "these drafts must always be critically reviewed and fact-checked by human contributors before submission."
• "the final decisions on wording and style remain human-led."
• "any interpretation or conclusions drawn must be reviewed by human contributors."
• "The editorial process, including pre-reviews and final reviews, must always be carried out by human contributors."

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 22:52, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

AI makes stuff up and this is quite dangerous. I asked it about a snow hazard in Switzerland and provided list of 3 sources; it told me the date 13 months off. If AI assistance is to be kept, I would suggest requiring that the author(s) provide a list of prompts to their AI tool on the talk page. This could help to improve quality of reports. Gryllida 02:09, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

> AI makes stuff up and this is quite dangerous.

However, those facts must be present in the listed sources to be included in our article. Bogus facts provided by AI won't be in the listed sources.
A full and complete review will catch that. That's how they were caught in both recent cases where a retraction was proposed. Someone read the article and tried to verify every statement against the sources.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 03:06, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I was told Grok AI gave information on underage kids pornography so strong delete@Michael.C.Wright BigKrow (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/05/elon-musk-grok-ai-digitally-undress-images-of-women-children BigKrow (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

"Maybe if we de-flagged reviewers after three AI slip-ups in published articles, we'd catch more of them sooner." Should the authors be penalised in any way, if they repeatedly fail to catch AI's hallucinations? I'd like to know your opinion on this, @Michael.C.Wright. Gryllida 13:20, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Authors are responsible for accuracy. But reviewers bear final accountability for published content because review is a permission granted by the community to publish on its behalf. In these cases, the failure was not the existence of errors, but their approval through incomplete review.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:56, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Michael.C.Wright

1. I ask to approach both reviewer and author in these cases as they both need to change their approach to ensure issues don't happen again and again. I asked you and you said 'Yeah, except reviewers were elected.' Yeah, sure, but my point still stands. I'm speaking of both.

2. Doesn't answer my question how to handle users who repeatedly insert same kind of issues into articles. That is not even always visible as the review feedback of failed articles gets deleted along with their talk page. I try to at least post a copy of it onto talk page via 'custom message' feature of ezpr2. Make that an official policy, would you? I'm sure you would be interested in this as it would allow to keep track of issues in articles submitted by that user in one spot, and provide a path towards figuring out why they happen and how to solve them, and improve 'article quality'.

3. And the same could go to posting feedback to a reviewer's talk page about post-publish retractions etc. I believe I didn't even get a talk page message about that retraction request; yet I did get an insinuation here. The note that a particular reviewer is being dodgy sits in your mind and doesn't sit on their talk page. I think that's inefficient. The concern about your mentioning of de-flagging lies in unnecessary escalation; the general civil thing to do has been to leave a message at a talk page before taking further action.

Hope it helps. Gryllida 16:14, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Michael.C.Wright see w:Hallucination (artificial intelligence) for your reference in case you didn't know, regards Gryllida 13:28, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Since hallucinations are inaccuracies, they won't be in the linked sources. So a full and proper WN:REV would catch them. Just as they were caught in the previously mentioned articles once a full and proper review was performed.

The reviewer should check that all information in the article is fully sourced,

Seems like we already have the solution; perform full and proper reviews.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:21, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Seems like incomplete solution since users don't fix anything fast. I have seen it tried for 15 years. Gryllida 15:50, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

• SupportI don't think we are on the right side of history. But current experience shows that editers and reviewers can not determine if theres any content in an AI generated article. And we "cannot edit after it published", so no remedies can be made. I also believe we should issue an announcement after disabling AI, which would show that we are a responsible media outlet.

Of course, I maintain the stance discussed earlier that, ideally, editors should consciously strive to discern, and reviewers should ensure everything meets the standards, such as accuracy. If the review process can achieve this, it doesn't matter whether the article is written by a human, Shakespeare's monkey, or AI, nor is explicit labeling necessary, because we ultimately get a good article.

I'm not saying people can't achieve this, but it requires too much effort, which is clearly not cost-effective. And if we implement policies similar to this now instead of banning AI, it will lead to situations where submissions written with AI cannot be published due to insufficient and timely review, which is obviously not in our favor.

I apologize for the mistakes in an article I participated in editing. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

> editers and reviewers can not determine if theres any content in an AI generated article.
If that were true, how was it identified for the proposed retraction?Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:32, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm just coming to this now and have no idea what this question is asking. Is there some background somewhere about a proposed retraction that isn't immediately clear in this thread? What is that phrase referring to? Tduk (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the proposed deletion linked in the first sentence of this section. Gryllida 13:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Tduk fyi

• for last few months now, partly due to my medical issues and partly due to my preference, i have been publishing articles checking only the basics (5Ws and H) and not checking each sentence thoroughly. i read through sources and ensure that what i have read does not have serious npov issues or contradictions that immediately strike my mind, but don't check fully.
• i believe @Michael.C.Wright has made it clear that he is here to uphold the standards to highest thresholds and now this is taking the form of him doing a full review of an article at time of archival. i disagree with this approach as i think it is taking away his valuable time from reviewing stories which are actually fresh. i do not believe anyone ever did a full review of an article at time of archival. this process previously only involved checking for red links, issues anyone previously flagged at a talk page, etc.
• this in some cases results in him finding a full bucket of issues that he does not wish to write a 'correction' for because it would require a complete article rewrite. as i am one of the active (and lazy) reviewers here i should normally reply to these requests but i lack the energy to do this as my current state for last few months results in my energy levels being extremely low, at around 40% of what an average person has got. cause is unknown.
• yet i keep reviewing articles and keep ignoring these requests to retract articles because it is even harder to reply to those than to one full review in the first place (need to articulate why some of the points being nitpicked were utter bullshit, as i find that i do disagree with some of them).
• this leads to me becoming more exhausted and circles back to me not participating properly
• there is an ondoing discussion of it in this section (on the very same 'proposals' subpage of water cooler)

hope this helps you to get an idea of the situation at least qualitatively.

regards Gryllida 13:36, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Sheminghui.WU, i liked that thought, that catching AI hallucinations is time consuming and may lead to delays in publishing. Gryllida 13:25, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

	[A]t the time of publication, a news article must be solidly fact-checked and as objective as possible.
—Wikinews' mission statement at Meta

To make sure I understand the position being advanced here, I see the following claims and implications:

• That, for an extended period[4], reviews have been intentionally conducted without full verification, despite policy requiring it.
• That multiple proposals have been made to relax or redefine review expectations[5],[6] to align with this reduced, 5W-only level of scrutiny, but without community consensus.
• That, following retractions triggered by full verification after publication, the proposed remedy is to restrict or ban AI use rather than to restore compliance with existing review standards.
• That AI-assisted content is treated as uniquely suspect, while comparable human errors from incomplete review are framed as understandable due to fatigue.
• That thorough verification during review is characterized as counterproductive because it increases post-publication workload, rather than being recognized as work that belongs in the review process.

I disagree with those priorities.

You previously articulated the risk clearly yourself, noting that becoming more liberal in approvals in order to increase output is “disastrous,”[7] and that pursuing readership through speed leads to biased, lower-quality journalism. That analysis remains sound and is manifest here in the number of resultant retractions.

Applying full verification after publication did create additional work, but only because required checks were knowingly deferred during review. The remedy is not to restrict tools, but to align review practice with policy.

The underlying issue is not that policy was followed, but that it was repeatedly and unilaterally dismissed.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:42, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

This is too long, but I will answer each point anyway.

• That, for an extended period[4], reviews have been intentionally conducted without full verification, despite policy requiring it.
  • Yes. I try to do full verification to a degree, but not to each letter. The motivation here is to verify key details and publish while article is still fresh.
• That multiple proposals have been made to relax or redefine review expectations[5],[6] to align with this reduced, 5W-only level of scrutiny, but without community consensus.
  • That discussion is still open.
• That, following retractions triggered by full verification after publication, the proposed remedy is to restrict or ban AI use rather than to restore compliance with existing review standards.
  • This is an overloaded sentence for me. For once, it's not only 'review' standards at the plate, it's also the 'write up' standards on the plate.
• That AI-assisted content is treated as uniquely suspect, while comparable human errors from incomplete review are framed as understandable due to fatigue.
  • I do not know where this came from; please try phrasing it again. I lack resource to attempt to read this more than once.
• That thorough verification during review is characterized as counterproductive because it increases post-publication workload, rather than being recognized as work that belongs in the review process.
  • I do not know where this came from; please try phrasing it again. I lack resource to attempt to read this more than once.
• Pursuing readership through speed leads to biased, lower-quality journalism
  • I do not care about readership. I do not know why you think I care of that.
• "Applying full verification after publication did create additional work, but only because required checks were knowingly deferred during review. The remedy is not to restrict tools, but to align review practice with policy." is missing a 'In my view' note.
• "The underlying issue is not that policy was followed, but that it was repeatedly and unilaterally dismissed."
  • I do not agree with this statement. I do not think the current policy requires 100% coverage of fact check.

Hope this helps. Gryllida 15:57, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

> I do not think the current policy requires 100% coverage of fact check.

It is explicit: "The reviewer should check that all information in the article is fully sourced..."

It's been a part of the policy since its inception, eighteen years ago.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 16:04, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Posted below. Gryllida 16:35, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Comment My understanding is that, for a fair amount of time:

• There has been a lack of humans, writing articles, editing articles and reviewing them, making it difficult to publish even one article a week;
• That for a fair amount of articles "written" with usage of AI, the quality problems were significant - not only in style of writing, but even in "facts" mentioned in the article;
• That we currently have a tool to discourage blatant plagiarism from sources - which therefore encourages "lazy" (or tired, or whatever) contributors to use AI as text generator;
• AI assisted content is not treated as uniquely suspect. Rather, where text is written by humans, humans are much less likely to generate hallucinations, and much more likely to follow guidelines for writing articles. AI assisted content doesn't know Wikinews guidelines, and even if it were provided with them, it would still be likely to hallucinate;

The proposals in this thread have included:

• Temporarily banning AI usage for writing of text in Wikinews articles - which I tend to agree with, though I would prefer a constructive discussion on positive and negative examples of AI generated contributions to Wikinews;
• Removing reviewer duties from people who have missed AI hallucinations in articles they have published - which I absolutely disagree with. We need more people in Wikinews, not less.

I would like to add the following proposals:

• Possibly, add a tool to detect AI hallucinations - numbers (10 or ten or dozens - format doesn't matter), places, people which are not mentioned in the sources;
• Or even better, write a Wikinews-specific (AI-powered? I don't like AI, but if you do, go ahead, contribute to development and testing) tool to generate text based on the provided links to sources;
• Remember that having duties of being a reviewer doesn't deprive you of rights of being an editor. If an article needs improvement and editors are not showing up, feel free to improve it yourself - with caveat that you will have to find another reviewer to publish it afterwards.

Reviewers don't have to be perfect. Reviewers need to be there, active and helping. But they don't have to be perfect. They just have to do their best. And discouraging writers and reviewers, penalizing them for their mistakes, can kill the project. This isn't school where kids have to go, whether they want to or not. This is a project based on volunteers. So instead of wasting their time with these heated opinionated threads and further dividing the community, get out there and do what you can. /AI will not write Wikinews for us./ Wikiwide (talk) 07:48, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

> Reviewers don't have to be perfect. Reviewers need to be there, active and helping. But they don't have to be perfect. They just have to do their best.

We hold contributors accountable under our policies and guidelines, and the same applies to reviewers. Publishing inaccurate, biased, or plagiarized content due to incomplete review should not be acceptable. Reviewers volunteer for the role with an understanding of its requirements. Unilaterally choosing to disregard core policy for convenience undermines that responsibility, creates more work for others, and damages the project's reputation.

If reviewers knowingly accept inaccuracies, bias, or plagiarism for reasons of convenience, it raises a fundamental question about the purpose of the reviewer role itself. The review function exists precisely to prevent those failures, not to normalize them.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:49, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

> Removing reviewer duties from people who have missed AI hallucinations
That was not proposed. I forwarded a thought experiment by saying "Maybe [emphasis added] if we de-flagged reviewers after three AI slip-ups in published articles, we'd catch more of them sooner."
There used to be the notion of "easy-come, easy-go" for the reviewer bit. There is a very brief discussion here between Pi zero and Brian McNeil, two contributors who were instrumental in developing the modern review process. That discussion illustrates the level of attention to detail they hoped for from reviewers. Our current policies and guidelines still largely reflect that expectation.
My point is that this is not the way to go about policy change. What has occurred is one reviewer has unilaterally disregarded policy for personal convenience (as stated), and that has resulted in the publication of inaccuracies, bias, and/or plagiarism.
If WN:IAR is used as a justification (and it has not been, so far), even that requires the action to improve the project.
Reviewing as if a policy change has occurred, when it has not, predictably increases post-publication errors and workload. It then becomes circular to cite those downstream burdens as justification for lowering the standard that would have prevented them.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 17:42, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think there was disregard from one reviewer, that's why I opened RFC below. I believe that doing 100% verification was not common practice. Gryllida 21:04, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Do we have consensus? @Gryllida, @Michael.C.Wright BigKrow (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

RfC from reviewers: verifiability policy

The current verifiability policy states "The reviewer should check that all information in the article is fully sourced". In a discussion above, Michael.C.Wright noted that this requires checking each piece in the published article to the letter.

So for example the way I understood it from above discussion, publishing an article with note 'A bus crashed, it carried 45 customers.' with a lot of other newsy information such as 5Ws, H, a driver was drunk, driver survived with one leg injury, etc other details, would require reviewer checking everything; according to this interpretation, just checking everything else while ignoring that piece of detail about '45' (and hence risking it will be published with incorrect number) would be against the current policy. This is purposefully a bit exaggerated example to get my point across. From time to time Michael.C.Wright picked up some more serious issues in my reviews, for example one article I didn't run in copyvio check, and then he went and put a dozen of issues which weren't adequately verified or attributed or some other thing, that I am yet to look at when I am slightly less busy hopefully towards the end of this week, and proposed a retraction. That retraction discussion link is located in first sentence of the above proposal to ban AI usage at Wikinews.

I don't believe this is realistic to expect a reviewer to check 100% of the content in an article unless someone is hired to do such extensive reviews and another user is hired to implement the requested changes quickly (a total of 2 users hired). I believe that requiring full review will delay reviews as they are simply more time consuming for the reviewer; and this will also delay publishing because a long list of issues will be presented to an author, and an author will take longer to address them. I proposed earlier, for example, that only the 5W and H, and plagiarism, should be checked, and potentially NPOV next on the list, but I expect that checking article to the last letter of each sentence is not required. For example being satisfied that around 70% of the article was confirmed in the sources could be sufficient to publish it.

I am seeking comment from each reviewer about this. Please type it into below if you do not mind. Thanks. Gryllida 16:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Comments from reviewers

This section is just for reviewers to say how they are doing reviews or how they think they should be done, whether they should be '100% verification coverage', etc. When posting this I wanted it just to see what each reviewer is doing currently about this. It is not intended for discussion just to see the current status. Then, further down the page, this section is then followed by another section for discussion. Gryllida 16:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

• Space for @Acagastya comment (click 'reply' next to my nick and add your answer below) Thanks Gryllida 16:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
• Space for @Bawolff comment (click 'reply' next to my nick and add your answer below) Thanks Gryllida 16:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
• Space for @Chaetodipus comment (click 'reply' next to my nick and add your answer below) Thanks Gryllida 16:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
• Space for @Cromium comment (click 'reply' next to my nick and add your answer below) Thanks Gryllida 16:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
• Space for @Heavy Water comment (click 'reply' next to my nick and add your answer below) Thanks Gryllida 16:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
• Space for @Gryllida comment (click 'reply' next to my nick and add your answer below) Thanks Gryllida 16:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
  • As noted above, I would be satisfied if 5W and H was verified and majority of the article, not necessarily 100% of the article. Gryllida 16:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
• Space for @JJLiu112 comment (click 'reply' next to my nick and add your answer below) Thanks Gryllida 16:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
• Space for @LivelyRatification comment (click 'reply' next to my nick and add your answer below) Thanks Gryllida 16:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
• Space for @Lofi Gurl comment (click 'reply' next to my nick and add your answer below) Thanks Gryllida 16:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
• Space for @Michael.C.Wright comment (click 'reply' next to my nick and add your answer below) Thanks Gryllida 16:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
• Space for @RockerballAustralia comment (click 'reply' next to my nick and add your answer below) Thanks Gryllida 16:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
• Space for @SVTCobra comment (click 'reply' next to my nick and add your answer below) Thanks Gryllida 16:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
• Space for @ShakataGaNai comment (click 'reply' next to my nick and add your answer below) Thanks Gryllida 16:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
• Space for @Tom Morris comment (click 'reply' next to my nick and add your answer below) Thanks Gryllida 16:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
• Space for @Tyrol5 comment (click 'reply' next to my nick and add your answer below) Thanks Gryllida 16:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
• Space for @William S. Saturn comment (click 'reply' next to my nick and add your answer below) Thanks Gryllida 16:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

General discussion

General discussion. Gryllida 16:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)