Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals/archives/2025/December

Toward a new minor paradigm

{{poll}}

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)