Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
This is an archive of past discussions from Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals/archives/2025. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current page.

Proposed next steps following SPTF recommendations

I think we should immediately get back to the job of publishing articles and focus on addressing some of the recommendations in the report. A proposed order of priorities is below.

Proposal: We should prioritize our response to the legitimate concerns of the SPFT as follows:

  1. Initiate a project to identify all pages using DPL (unsupported extension) and migrate away from it.
  2. Initiate a project to migrate away from LiquidThreads (Unsupported extension)
  3. Initiate a project to reform our WN:Archive and Wikinews:Reviewing articles policies (I believe the combination of the two policies as currently written is our biggest hurdle to higher publication rates[1])

@Victoria, any input on the above priorities would be most welcome. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 16:41, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can understand, this all would be positive things. Victoria (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions

Votes

Support I don't have any constructive ideas about this yet, but as a still active user, I'd like to express my support first. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question @Bawolff, is it easy enough to change EasyPeerReview to stop creating new Comment pages with each article? Those utilize Liquid threads and since we need to get rid of that extension, this would be a logical first-step. We could then (hopefully) decide as a community what to do with all of the existing comment pages (if we are technically able to keep them post-uninstall).
Question Would you also be willing to do some additional support work on EasyPeerReview while we figure out how to reform the review process? I have some ideas that will comply with current policy and guidelines but give us latitude to change some things slightly. Thanks in advance (on both questions).
Comment I've also emailed the developer of LiquidThreads in hopes of getting more information on how to migrate off of it and if we can preserve any existing content in the Comment pages.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 01:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re: EasyPeerReview - yes i can if that is desired. Regarding LQT - the official replacement is DiscussionTools (which is in use on this wiki) you might want to consider if that is good enough for comments namespace. LQT is very unmaintained at this point and also very complex, WMF devs would probably be happy to turn it off if possible. Re DPL - i would dispute Victoria's claim its unmaintained. I don't see any reason for enwikinews to migrate away from it at this time, although this should probably be a broader discussion with developers (esp. Ladsgroup). Bawolff ☺☻ 16:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, if there is an issue with DPL its not really about maintainership but query scalability. Bawolff ☺☻ 18:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bawolff, regarding LiquidThreads, it appears that if we just turn it off, we disconnect any comments from the page. I tested using {{#useliquidthreads:0}} on a comment page[2] and it no longer displayed the existing comment. I've seen where other projects have used a bot to reformat LT comments to standard Talk page comments[3] but I don't see how to do that easily.
If we merely disable liquid threads now, what happens to old comments?
Thanks again for your help with this.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 21:20, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine there would have to be some solution to convert lqt to normal pages. There might be something already existing for that. In any case, i think having a migration path would be a precondition to disabling. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:43, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> I imagine there would have to be some solution to convert lqt to normal pages.
I agree. I probably should’ve been more direct. Apologies if I wasn’t clear. Are you aware of any official or unofficial guidance on how to migrate away from LiquidThreads and convert those pages to a more standard format?Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 22:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea, but im sure someone would be willing to make something. P.s. on the subject of DPL, if we were to move away from it, we could probably replicate some of its functionality with lua scripts, if we make the publish script add the article to a giant json file of all published articles. Bawolff ☺☻ 18:44, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

┌───────────────────┘
Regarding DPL, I think to make our decision we might benefit from knowing:

  1. Is our current use supported?
  2. Is our current use sustainable?
  3. Aside from importing very large numbers of new articles[4] and/or assigning more than ~1,000,000 new articles to categories[5], what else should we be cautious of?

Any other things that you might find useful to help the community make the decision?

I think I've created a User talk page at fa.WP and pinged LadsGroup there, which I believe is their home wiki. Hopefully that helps.

> ...we make the publish script add the article to a giant json file of all published articles.

We'd need a JSON extension installed for that, correct? I agree that keeping DPL would be convenient and the easiest path. But adding JSON functionality might allow us to also start tracking article workflow history even after articles are deleted (I don't want to get to far afield, but a little forward-thinking never hurts).

I believe ru.WN replaced DPL with date categories and DEFAULTSORT. Would this be easier than the JSON route? —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 21:09, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that a lot of WMF staff are either at Wikimania, or traveling to/from it. Nothing needs to be decided right now, I'm sure ladsgroup will respond when he is back home. Regarding DPL - typically it scales with the size of the smallest specified category. In the context of Wikinews, probably we should say the size of Category:Published is what to look at, as pretty much all usages of DPL use that category. Some of the alternative sort options are sometimes less efficient than the normal "categoryadd" method. The main thing that did ruwikinews in was two fold - first the size of the categories ballooned because they imported a billion articles, but also they had an infobox on all those pages with a DPL, which all had to be rendered at the same time. Thus the DPLs started taking much longer to render, and there was a large number that all were rendered at once. (On the political side, they seemed very unapologetic that they were causing downtime. Pro-tip, if you ever do anything that takes down all Wikimedia sites, apologize perfusely or the rest of Wikimedia is going to hate you, and be very cautious about intentionally doing the same thing over again a second time)
Regarding the JSON idea. This wouldn't require any other extensions. Basically there would be a list at Module:SomeModule/articles.json (possibly split up between multiple lists). Any time someone publishes an article, the easy peer review script would add to that list and include what categories the article is in as well as the date. Templates could load that list (via mw.loadJsonData and essentially emulate DPL, at least for lists of published articles (It wouldn't work for other uses of DPL, like what articles are disputed or what not. Some features of DPL would not work). There are some ways this is hacky. It also has scaling issues (The list of articles can be at most 2MB long and it might be a bit harder on page parsing). But it would probably work as a fallback solution if DPL is no longer viable.
The other option for replacing DPL that gets thrown around sometimes, is having it be based off the search system. Search supports incategory: to do category intersection and also supports different orderings, so in theory a DPL like system could be made that runs off the search backend.
I've also heard some comments that devs may be happier with DPL if its features were pared back and it just did its core use case. I'm not sure exactly what this would entail as at first glance the core use case seems like the problematic one, but perhaps something could be done in this direction.
As far as maintenance of the extension goes - I used to feel I was maintaining it (not actively adding stuff, but if any serious issues came up, fixing them) however i notice that recently there was a fairly major issue i wasn't even aware of, so perhaps i have not been doing this.
On LQT, i asked around, and apparently there is a script to convert to flow, and a second script to convert flow -> normal pages. I don't know if that is the best approach or not. I think the community should more focus on what its will is here, and then once that is decided think about the how. FWIW, there are currently 5 wikis using liquid threads (Plus 8-ish wikis that have made LQT read only), so its not like wikinews is the last hold out here. It seems like the migration strategy on other wikis has been to just make LQT read only but leave it enabled. By a similar token there are lots of Wikis using DPL. This includes English Wikisource and Wikiquote, which quite frankly are way way too big for this extension. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:15, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding LiquidThreads, if we are moving forward to discontinue the extension but still want to keep the comment section approach alive, I might have a decent idea. A few months ago I started preparing a script that displays a comment box and a few recent comments at the end of articles (though I stopped working on it due to closure related situation).
Currently, the comments made by users are stored and fetched from the talk page. We could instead make it fetch from the Comment namespace if required. (Note: This script can only fetch comments from wikitext; it will not be compatible with existing LiquidThreads comments.) This would provide a direct user comment interface on the article itself, showing a few recent comments. Users could also like a comment or choose a custom profile icon image for their posts.
I’m not completely sure whether this would help if we discontinue LiquidThreads while still trying to keep the comment section alive or even make it more engaging, but I just wanted to put this idea out there. If the community shows interest, I can start working on the script again based on suggestions.
Anyone who wants to try it out can do so, but unfortunately it is currently only available in Bengali. You may need to enable Google Translate in your browser. To test it, go to test.wikipedia, install this script in your common.js, and then visit this page. At the bottom of the page you should see a comment section.
Here is a screenshot of that comment section (texts are in Bengali): File:Bangla wikinews comment section script.gif. -- Asked42 (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I got it working at testpedia (they missed an opportunity in not using that name). Working around the Bangali is a bit of a challenge but I really like the idea.
From what I gather from old conversations, en.WN originally went with liquidthreads with the goal of making comments easy for non-wiki people who didn't understand talk pages.
I think having this 'front end' directly in the article could help make the pages appear more interactive and may encourage more interaction via comments. I'd like to be able to kick the tires more if possible. I don't know how easy it would be to put together a proof of concept here, so I don't know how much I'm asking of you. I also don't know what kind of receptivity it will have. We have very low activity and very high resistance to many things at the moment.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 20:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Votes on disabling DPL

As Ladsgroup noted here, “it won’t be fixed if any major issues happen.”
That means if DPL suffers a serious failure, the impact on en.WN will be immediate and obvious. Readers could lose the ability to navigate related articles through infoboxes, or worse, see red error messages wherever DPL is used.
Compounding this, we currently have very few active admins with the technical expertise to address such an issue if it arises.
Given these risks, I think we should start discussing alternatives to DPL, at least for critical areas like the main page and article infoboxes.
The idea presented by @Bawolff of using JSON seems compelling and might provide us with additional metadata per article to use in tracking and improving our workflows.
Are there more ideas and perspectives on this? What alternatives do others see as viable, and how might we structure a transition plan if we decide to move away from DPL?Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 20:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Votes on moving away from liquid threads

Votes on revision to archival policies

  • Question what is this vote about. what are the proposed changes? i would only support making categorie of published article editable, but not content. Gryllida 18:02, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This part of the proposal invites us to reconsider our review and archival processes. Concerns about low publication rates suggest these policies, as they interact, may be part of the problem.
I haven’t proposed specific reforms yet. I’d first like to see if there’s consensus that some change is needed. If so, we can shape the details together.
At m:Talk:Public consultation about Wikinews, several participants pointed to rigid internal processes as a barrier to contribution, a concern that has merit. One theme in the task force report is that Wikinews may lean too heavily into formal journalism at the expense of wiki-based collaboration. While our commitment to original reporting, neutrality, and verification must remain central, we should consider where a shift toward the wiki model could reduce barriers and invite more participation.
This isn’t about lowering standards. It’s about adapting to meet current challenges while preserving what makes Wikinews unique. I welcome others’ ideas on how we might improve review and archiving.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 13:42, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment +1 to Michael's comment above. This seems like the most critical issue for projects whose editors get stuck partway through a complex multi-step process. I see a lot of articles being deleted after a month, or etched in stone despite not being very good yet. This keeps volume low, prevents the sort of popular timeline or often-updated articles that wikis are good at, and is unfriendly to a wide range of editing styles. sj (talk) 04:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recruitment

Let's talk about some ways we might be able to draw in and retain new drafters. Gryllida has already proposed a few ways we can help them develop skills after they've had a chance to decide that Wikinews is worth their donated time and work.

  • Talk to any first-time drafters who clearly aren't bots or advertisers (and even a few that are, perhaps; you never know the paid image manager who might decide to come here as a hobby) and cultivate a friendly atmosphere.
    • Lose the toxic elements of our culture (most of you have seen my take on this elsewhere)
    • Accept step-by-step, incremental improvement toward solid drafting; ballpark timeline of one year before any drafter regularly submits one-and-done drafts.
  • Actively pitch Wikinews as a practice ground to universities with journalism programs. This is best done by users with Wikinews email addresses. We had an Australian journalism school come here once.
  • Actively recruit users sanctioned on other Wikiprojects. Because we're not a Wikipedia, some people who got blocked from a Wikipedia or another project are still perfectly good candidates for Wikinews. Was the person blocked for WP:OWN behavior? That's not a problem here. Some of our reviewers have expressed a preference for single-drafter drafts. Was the person topic banned for poor sourcing, like this person? Tell them that Wikinews is a great place to practice sourcing skills (which they can then rub in their accusers' faces, heh heh heh! Spite journalism is still journalism!).

I mean ...there's me? I got blocked from WP (long story) and then I became one of Wikinews' most productive drafters. I did cite my time on Wikinews as part of an unblock request at Wikipedia, and I think it helped.

The Simple English Wikipedia affirmatively discourages people treating their site like a proving ground to get unblocked elsewhere, but they're a Wikipedia, and what causes problems on en.wiki usually causes problems on simple.wiki. It could work for us. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Darkfrog24
Yes talk to newbies - requires effort - if 24/7 then helper gets burned out, was common issue - suggest you dedicate one day a week for it to babysit one article a week, plus stay tuned for their follow up edits ? Do we need a roster ? Wikipedia has Welcomittee for it, maybe borrow from there
Yes recruit from unis - you wanna do it? Or compile a list of unis and who lectures journslism And key contacts please ?
yes get those who banned, but also scan enwp new pages for news - and transfer them here (they stupidly delete them)
Regards Gryllida 13:31, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For bullet point #1, I don't think we should have strict rules or quotas. It's about cultivating relationships, and that's more art than science.
For bullet point #2, who here has an @wikinews address and/or has already disclosed their legal name publicly anyway? I do not already have any contacts. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Not quota, you pick for yourself. I just suggest helping newbies 24/7/365 may burn out, hence i suggest srlf imposed breaks.
2. A email user is required to send emails. Anyone can compile a list of contacts collaboratively I think, this would be super helpful. Gryllida 13:39, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) Yes, that's good, but it sounded like you were proposing a rule REQUIRING helpers to keep to a schedule.
2) Okay, here's one. I search engine "journalism program," I figure the most prestigious programs don't need us and feel a state school might be the thing... City College of New York? Perfect! And here's there contact page: https://www.ccny.cuny.edu/journalism/contact Took less than one minute. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkfrog24 @Gryllida why are we discussing recruiting new people when we can't supposed the userbase we have? Unless there is a way to directly recruit reviewers, or more quickly create them, we are creating more of a backlog for the reviewers we have. As far as I'm aware many things have been waiting to be reviewed for over a week now. Tduk (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Check the dates on the discussion, T. This was last summer. I agree that article review is our limiting reagent.
I was going to suggest that you put yourself up for reviewership, even with only four drafted articles under your belt, but now I see that none of them have gone through review. They weren't rejected. Rather, they're still in limbo. Through no visible fault of your own, I do not think making you a reviewer at this time would happen.
But promoting from within might work. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have one published article I had a big hand in at the beginning of the year, but only recently had time to try to help out here. However, I think this is indicative that somehow the system is not working - there does not seem to be a way to deal with a lack of reviewers; this is an oversight isn't it? I'm seeing people posting on talk pages about leaving this after contributing for months, because of this. Can we suggest to them that they become reviewers? People seem to feel resigned to failure of this site. Tduk (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have one open reviewer request that has been long open but getting nowhere. We recently had another that failed.
Anyone is free to nominate themselves for reviewer and anyone is free to nominate anyone else as a reviewer.
However, reviewers are expected to review and publish based on existing policy. Therefore I would say that policy and guideline reform is our "upstream" problem. More reviewers can compensate for the issues we have through brute-force, but to really change things, we need to reform both our review process[6] and the WN:Archive policy.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 19:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying that, besides there being apparently no interest in reviewing articles, there is also no interest in reviewing reviewers? Tduk (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
🤔I actually know some people working in Australian high schools, but I don’t really have any good ideas about it.😂 ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 11:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────┘
I’m not saying there’s "no interest." The reality is that we have very few active reviewers, and the reasons likely vary. For some it’s possibly a lack of time or interest, for others the process may feel tedious, or maybe they're not interested in the debates that often surround reviewing when it doesn't go the way a contributor wanted it to go.

The same is true of the slow progress on the current reviewer request. There’s no single explanation, but it reflects the broader issue we’re grappling with.

At the same time, there’s a disconnect worth highlighting: while there’s no shortage of complaints about the lack of reviewers, we also see relatively little peer participation. Few people use {{Pre-review}} on others’ drafts, offer copyedits, or engage on article talk pages to resolve issues before review. I even added a note below the review-request template suggesting that, once someone has triple-checked their own article, they take time to check others. That’s fundamentally what reviewing is: applying policies and guidelines to other people's articles help ensure quality.

The fact that this kind of proactive collaboration is rare points to the deeper problem; the workflow itself discourages participation. That’s why I keep coming back to the same conclusion: the process is flawed and needs serious, thoughtful reform if we want to change these patterns. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 22:49, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this workflow needs to be easier. As far as I know, the way to find articles that need help is going directly to the Categories for Developing/Review. These should all be easily found in a central location for instance. I think another thing that we can capitalize on, as I've seen you mention, is collaboration. We should discourage ownership of articles. This removes some of the pressure to - on en.wiki, many great contributors don't edit every day. There's no reason we can't have something like that here. Tduk (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was advised to create a thread at Wikinews talk:Newsworthiness but not many people seem to be commenting on it. How did we make any progress if no one is interested in the workflow issues here? Tduk (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It could be that others don't necessarily agree with what you are saying and don't want to argue about it...not that no one is interested in workflow issues here. It could also be that they might agree fully and don't feel the need to add anything. You may be reading intent where there isn’t any and framing the situation as an either/or choice between discussing your specific approach or not wanting progress, which might not reflect how others see it.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 20:04, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tduk i think we need to fill the gaps (software tooling, reviewing, editing). some of these tasks cannot be done by existing users because they know how to write but they do not have coding or copyediting skills. i think that best works with a regular such as fortnightly audio meeting where all pending tasks are noted and someone takes them. without such meetings there is issue that tasks are scattered across wiki and maybe not noticed. another thing that could work is making some training step by step, i tried at Wikinews:Education-Gryllida but this is such a manual process that i also walked away. Wikinews:Training/Members was unusable too and nobody signed up. i have no energy to continue any of that currently. :-( (please note i got tired from making User:Gryllida/Newsroom by hand and would appreciate if there was a script that asks users to specify event dates for pages and generates a report in a table. any help would be appreciated. before then, any spare time i got is spent deleting pages and annotating them with event dates and i stopped doing it because i burned out.) Gryllida 05:51, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership


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


The late Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) used to be key leader of the project. Now we don't appear to have a leader. As @Michael.C.Wright pointed out a few times, he does not consider me as authority. In a recent discussion, he said he does not recognise anyone as authority. I think we need to have a discussion about leadership at Wikinews. I am suggesting that everyone discuss to propose a candidate who has features

  • can commit significant amount of time,
  • is well organised and approachable,
  • is newsy (that is, understands clearly how Wikinews is different from Wikipedia; is actively able to collaborate, including across different language editions).

Maybe multiple candidates from different language Wikinews.

The role of such user would be to

  • train new users as reviewers
  • train new users as reporters
  • proactively make decisions whom to nominate for reviewer or for reporter
  • proactively schedule effort to develop software and workflows that help to make Wikinews more efficient
  • proactively follow recent developments in Wikimedia and in citizen journalism to introduce changes to Wikinews if needed

Hope there are some thoughts about this. Gryllida 12:21, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my point: in a recent exchange, I responded strongly to the idea that one user can “expect” things of another. I want to explain why.
In a consensus-based project like Wikinews, no individual holds authority over others. The only expectations that carry weight are those grounded in our shared policies and principles, especially those like WN:IAR, which places the project's well-being above rigid rule-following. We are all peers, each responsible for contributing to the health and integrity of the project.
When someone says “I expect you to…”—unless it’s clearly rooted in policy or consensus it risks implying a level of authority that doesn’t exist here. That’s not how this project works, and it’s not how it should work.
We can and should hold each other accountable to our shared values. But authority in this space comes from trust, not title; from example, not expectation.
I also find it problematic that this discussion was framed around whether I recognize Gryllida, or anyone, as an authority. That framing shifts the focus from the health of the project to interpersonal dynamics and perceived status. It misrepresents my position and risks undermining the foundational principle of consensus-based collaboration.
My stance is not about any one person. It’s about the structure of this project: authority here comes from shared policy, collective action, and earned trust, not from role, title, or expectation. Suggesting that one user’s refusal to recognize another as an authority is a reason to propose centralized leadership misdiagnoses the issue. It treats horizontal resistance to hierarchy as a problem, when in fact, it's part of what protects the integrity of consensus.
We should be encouraging initiative, collaboration, and distributed leadership, not formalizing roles that consolidate influence. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 13:55, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above summary and my concern is that there should be a leader. Not necessarily a bossy person to order others to do things but someone who is considered an authority in majority of cases. Having a good understanding of wiki is not required but good understanding of content is. Gryllida 21:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, there should not have to be some person who via sheer force of will keeps a project like this alive. In practice (and from my perspective), that has been needed here and to a lesser extent at en.wb and was filled by Pi zero for a few years (RIP). As to who that person would be now, I don't know if there is one. Over at en.wb, I see a couple of very active users regularly. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:39, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noted it elsewhere that the role of a leader is to notice who is good at (editing, reviewing, writing, etc) and nominate them for permissions. And if there are such candidates off-wiki then potentially invite them here. There is no 'force' required for this for 'leadership' is. In an anarchy this is a bit less likely to happen, or may happen with a significant delay. Gryllida 19:44, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I had to choose, I still think Michael C. Wright is the most suitable. He demonstrated a remarkable ability to remain calm while seeking consensus and to firmly uphold his own position during the public consultation. I actively participated in that consultation, so I can attest to this firsthand. If one day WMF or the community were to establish a position like a “Global Wikinews Coordinator,” I would nominate him, even though we still have some differences in working methods. And of course you, Gryllida. But discussing this now isn’t particularly meaningful; I agree with what Justin said—this is based on past experience. Such a de facto leadership role isn’t formally defined or elected; it emerges through work. Still, being able to point this out demonstrates insight and courage. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 06:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue at hand isn’t a lack of "leadership." What Wikinews needs is a renewed sense of shared purpose and guiding principles.
In the past, a group of editors operated with a common ethos: producing accurate, neutral, and well-crafted journalism. They valued nuance and depth over "churn-and-burn" publishing, and that collective standard helped ensure a level of quality.
Over time, that shared understanding has faded. The challenge for those active now is to rebuild it, to define what Wikinews means today and how we uphold its mission of publishing neutral, accurate reporting.
I have no interest in being, or in seeing anyone "elected" as, a leader. That concept runs counter to the spirit of a wiki. Authority here should come from collaboration, trust, and adherence to policy, not from title or expectation. Our focus should remain on collective effort and the integrity of the news we publish.
Consensus functions as a form of collective authority. It doesn’t reside in any individual or title, but in the community acting through reasoned agreement and transparent process, grounded in clearly defined and consistently applied policies and guidelines.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 15:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree that Pi zero was a leader around here. I didn't like a lot of his choices and I found some of his conduct unhealthy, but there's no denying he did a ton of work and kept this place operating. One thing he might have been doing that we could use some of now? I think he was motivating the reviewers. Article review is our limiting reagent/bottleneck. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "concensus", alone, will fullfill the roles I mentioned above. Sorry. Gryllida 19:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Michael.C.Wright that what is needed is not leadership, but enough moving parts and working policies that it does not need a "leader". Getting there from where the site is now is what I'm having trouble seeing how to do. Tduk (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, I think the site has been in basically a state of emergency for a while and someone does need to do something quickly. Tduk (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's something to think about, but it shouldn't be stressful, Nature.~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think should be done, and who should be responsible for it? It’s difficult for any individual to act outside of consensus without there being some pushback.
As one example of how even relatively small, semi-unilateral actions can have consequences: Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions/Asheiou. For all intents and purposes, that should have resulted in a new reviewer but didn't and the effect of the process has meant effectively the loss of a contributor and a potential reviewer. We are in the same place now as we were then.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 23:30, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This site is on the verge of being closed down; it has something special to it. I don't think the system of requiring acting pre-approved reviewers is sustainable; I think the concept of either verification of content or requirements to be a reviewer need to be rethought entirely. Systems do also need to be created to make contributing easier, but it is very hard to get external people to help if they look in (as I have) and see a strong resistance to change and what looks like being ok with the site going away entirely rather than fixing it. I am not the only one who thinks this way, I'm just the only one bothering to say so. Tduk (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, from an outside observer's perspective, enwn is perhaps the only Wikinews that has established such strict rules and adheres to them consistently. This also puts it closest to being a reliable source, and in this sense, closest to being cited as a news source. This is not easy. It requires serious consideration. Each Wikinews language version has its own unique characteristics as a media outlet, and enwn has always been a benchmark. I agree that some rules may be overly strict and also unnecessarily ineffective in reflecting the nature of the source, and this is maybe debatable. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting few thoughts by Sheminghui.WU. Zero snark here -- seriously: zero -- just a few thoughts. There are a few things that I think need to be remembered. I have been around here for about 15 years (if not longer). In my time, we've tried (quite hard) -- most of the time, to run this place like a credible news organization. But, never forget: There are NO PAYCHECKS HERE. Everyone here donates their time. That is how we work. In the US, there is an organization, The Poynter Institute -- that have written that, in terms of editorial oversight/rigor -- Wikinews has the deepest level of editorial credibility in terms of robust work. Never forget that. Leadership here is complicated at times. We need: Reporters, Reviewers and Administrators. There is (current discussion included) a tsunami of people willing to talk about maybe and wouldn't it be cool? and we oughtta do this and that, but rarely many people doing the work. Now: We also don't have the best system to reward people -- far from it! I understand that. But: We must never lose sight of what we are -- we get the news, we write the news, we publish the news. My professional work demands a lot from me. We just have to remember that people work HERE for free.--Bddpaux (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that the articles these portrayals are based on is a site that is basically copying information from other sites - is the argument here that the vetting of the sources it what makes en.wn a reliable source? Sorry, I'm not seeing what contribution the site is actually making even if people are saying things about the site. If en.wn somehow becomes an amazing source of credible info, what is it offering readers that the reputable news sites it is referencing also does not offer? That's a real question, not rhetorical. Tduk (talk) 13:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, neutrality and fact-checking are indeed important strengths, features, and goals of an article. However, you are quite right; spinning areticle is indeed not very meaningful. At the moment, I think we should discuss this further and improve the situation while minimizing any changes to the nature of source (most people, including those citing it, don't scrutinize the minor details of a website's operation). ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is this: Ideally, all news media, except Wikinews, would have biases and positions, while Wikinews would be neutral. Other media might use false information for profit, while we diligently verify it. Therefore, from a citation perspective, Wikinews is "most suitable for people 200 years from now."
As Wikinewsies, we should certainly uphold this ideal, but it's unrealistic; we need other working methods. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're describing sort of a snopes for news? That would be something. I actually am not sure the current verification goes far enough in that case, does it? or are you also saying that and I'm agreeing with you? Tduk (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes This is a volunteer project, so 1) the conflict of interest here is minimal! Much minimal compared to all traditional media! 2) the volunteers here don't need to put up with angers. I know it's no one's fault, but publishing is too difficult and slow, there are too many rules and deletes. Free source WikiNews must be free. I mean, This is a volunteer project! ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have concerns about stories that, when published, seem to be verifiable, but eventually are shown to be false? Tduk (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. We can always issue corrections or retractions. We have done this in the past when we've reported on what turned out to be a hoax.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 19:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a normal experience for the media. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source Helper as a Gadget


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The proposal to add add the SourceHelper script as a default gadget was successful. Documentation about the script is available here. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 14:10, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to add the SourceHelper script as a default gadget. Documentation about the script is available here. This will make adding sources more convenient and quicker, assisting users in many cases, saving them time, and providing an easy to navigate/use interface. -- Asked42 (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Gryllida 21:04, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SupportMichael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 15:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a great tool. All Wikinews should have this tool so that the code requirement does not exist, similar to Wikipedia's "visual editing". ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a month, and there have been no objections, so I think we can move forward!!? -- Asked42 (talk) 14:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think WP has a little gadget like this -- is it called "Cite It" -- or something similar?? A little pop up table that you just fill in the blanks with applicable stuff. I like the one over there. And: let's wait just a hair longer. I'd like to see a bit more consensus, but I think it's a cool suggestion for us.--Bddpaux (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bddpaux: Sure. But the gadget on wikipedia is for inline citations, which are not used here, and it also includes many other features specific to wikipedia. SourceHelper is adapted for Wikinews-style sourcing. -- Asked42 (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SupportCool! I like it. How about we give this another 24 hours, then make it rain!--Bddpaux (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing! -- Asked42 (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have installed the SourceHelper script as a gadget. -- Asked42 (talk) 07:35, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! Thank you. I'm sure it will be helpful!Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 14:01, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Changes implemented. Thanks!Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 19:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Changes implemented. Thanks again!Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 19:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
You can also see this example to preview how the {{ORNotes}} template will appear. --Asked42 (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yeah, that or a statement within the {{original reporting}} and {{interview}} templates themselves.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 12:44, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great!
The script for adding the OR notes is also ready to be used. -- Asked42 (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I have removed the underscore from the Under Review template. -- Asked42 (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
And implemented... 👍Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 19:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

New committee proposed


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The proposal was not accepted by the community. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 15:17, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Establish a temporary, Policy Committee (POLCOM)

I propose the community establish a temporary committee charged with revising our core policies and guidelines to improve our publication rate and contributor engagement across all roles (contributors, reviewers, administrators, and bureaucrats).

The committee would consist of 3–5 members elected by the community and would operate for a limited trial period (for example, three months). During that time, it would focus on identifying, drafting, and implementing changes aimed at making Wikinews more active, accessible, and productive.

At the end of its term, the committee would report its outcomes, and the community can decide whether to renew, revise, or retire it.

To keep initial debate minimal, I propose we use a straw poll to determine if such a committee should be established.

Votes

Please vote using

Include a brief statement and your signature.

Voting will close November 20. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 18:45, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral There are less than 10 active users as far as I can see so it's not clear what this will do differently from how things are already supposed to be. Tduk (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assume the following for argument's sake:
  • The committee is formed of three people
  • You campaign for committee membership on the idea of eliminating the review process
  • You secure enough votes and have become a committee member
You convince the other two committee members of the efficacy of the change and together the three of you change the policies and guidelines and observe what happens. If the results are good, the change remains. If the results are bad, the changes are reconsidered (maybe tweaked, maybe reverted).
In this way, we as a community say that we trust the committee to make even radical changes on our behalf, with the goal of improving conditions around here.
I think we face closure by December. I fear it may be too late for such a change to make a difference in time. But I am willing to take a big risk (throw a hail Mary) to try.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 19:53, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support then. Tduk (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I support democratic centralism, but I really don't understand the point of democratic centralism between seven people and three people. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support this attempt and "throw a hail Mary" approach. However, we have only about eight active users, which could all participate. I don't know how representativeness can be achieved on this committee, and in fact, it will only involve everyone indirectly; we will certainly express our own opinions. I understand we are pressed for time and need to reach a consensus. If we believe that surviving in December, or rather, to survive, requires substantial policy reforms, we can achieve this through a hasty vote (although without sufficient discussion, because this is a critical period), such as a vote on whether a certain policy should be reformed, rather than a three-person committee. Of course, if major changes are needed, the main drafting of the policy text will still be done by a few users. However, this shouldn't be the case for other matters, nor is it necessary to have such a committee. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Furthermore, I don't really have a significant expectation of the impact of enwn's internal policy reforms on the foundation's decision-making.) ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are unable to agree on much of anything as our community is currently composed. This proposal would allow us to designate 3-5 change-makers empowered and entrusted to make decisions with a lower barrier to action.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 22:43, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we confirm this, then we can organize a nationwide vote on policy reform, with a short timeframe, where those who don't vote abstain, and the majority vote is simply for "yes" over "no." Maybe we can try something like that first. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sheminghui.WU @Leaderboard and I seemed to agree about this. I don't think we've actually determined if we agree on anything, or if there's a majority consensus, on anything. These discussions have been too unfocused; I think people are also hesitant to disagree with some admins or perceive that they have more influence on policy, which I believe is incorrect. Maybe we can have some lightning straw polls on the same policy changes this "committee" would potentially be making. Tduk (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, I thought this straw poll was going to be a quick and simple poll (with a deadline), akin to what I assume you mean by a "lightning" straw poll. I thought it was focused; should we form a committee or not. The committee isn't intended to analyze, debate, and report, but "charged with revising our core policies and guidelines [emphasis added]."
This is about as close to radical action as one could get without boldly and unilaterally making the changes alone or with a 'rogue' faction.
What is unfocused and what is not "lightning" about it?Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 14:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> Maybe we can have some lightning straw polls on the same policy changes this "committee" would potentially be making.
I'd say let it rip. If that gets some action moving, great. If we don't need the committee because we're effecting change, great.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 23:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. That's not really my place to do; others, in theory, will have a better idea of what problems exist and what can be fixed. For instance, many of us supported your change to reviewing which allowed to post-review grammar fixes. Why wasn't that enacted? Shouldn't you have gone ahead with that? Tduk (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you followed the conversation recently? #Reforming review processMichael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 00:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had not seen it, and it seems clear from what @Asked42 that there is no place considered adequate to seek for policy changes on this site. You had told me that _that_ was the place for it, but apparently not. You proposed it a month ago, got as far as I can see only support and no objections, yet nothing happened until I asked what was happening two weeks later - but not even then, and all that is happening is that further consensus is being sought. Did I miss something? Tduk (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why does this have to be a "committee"? Leaderboard (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of another way to empower someone to make even radical changes without empowering a single person. With a committee, the hope is there will be at least some resistance to lust for power and authority. We also will get a bit of diversity in views about how to approach things.
Why are you hesitant about it being a committee?Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 14:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can the "committee" actually make those changes if the rest of the community is nonchalant? Sounds like it could risk animosity if the committee thinks differently from others. Leaderboard (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would answer "yes" to both statements; the committee can make the changes for a nonchalant community (that's actually the goal) and it is a risk they will go a direction many of us don't want, i.e., too deep into the wiki model and too far away from a journalistic model.
1. If the committee members are elected, I would assume the community supports their decisions and actions as a representative of the community.
2. I see the risk/benefit ratio like this:
a. our current publishing system is dysfunctional and discouraging and the result is the SPTF recommendation to close WN. The status quo very likely means closure—possibly as early as next month.
b.We saw increases in readership and writer-ship both when Gryllida published nearly anything with a verb in it in April and May. However strongly I personally disagree with that method (and I strongly disagree with it), I can't deny the results, which included a high rate of corrections and retractions for the same period. If we can find a way to publish at the rate we did in those months, while also avoiding high rates of corrections and retractions, I think we could improve our standing to 'outsiders' who don't fully grok our methods and mission.
Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 15:20, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify "published nearly anything with a verb in it"; is the implication that articles without verbs exist? and can you explain why whatever you're talking about increased readership? Tduk (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Without readership, all we do is for naught.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 22:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. I agree we want readers. I was asking you to explain how articles with verbs increased that, and to clarify what that means. Thanks. Tduk (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was using “articles with a verb in them” figuratively to describe the period when a modified review approach was used that emphasized publishing more quickly and frequently. During that time, we saw a marked increase in both readership and contributor activity. My point wasn’t that the content itself caused the rise, but that a higher publication rate appeared to correlate with greater engagement overall.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 00:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting phrasing choice on a site that is supposed to value clarify in content, isn't it? I feel like its tone is almost inappropriate now that I understand what you mean, and have trouble engaging further. Thank you for explaining what you meant. Tduk (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Largely speaking, I have very few problems with the idea. And: let's not play coy here -- I have nearly ZERO problems with anyone disagreeing with me, as long as our actions are focused on maintaining journalistic integrity. Freshness, solid sourcing, terse style, solid interviews etc. = good journalism. Yes: credentialled individuals here have earned their stripes, YET I am thrilled to see anyone come here, learn, do the work and go as "high" as they can go here (I put quotes because I hope we can maintain an egalatarian dynamic here). The old grognards (may they rest in peace) namely, Brian McNeil and Pi Zero refused to lower standards. If we come up with TOOLS to make things flow faster/better/easier, you'll hear minimal disagreement from me -- I promise (and I've seen some good signs of that in recent days). I figured out SUPER FAST in my early days here: I need to earn my place around this project, so I will do small edits/tasks as I catch the vibe of what is transpiring here. In very recent days, I've seen work that involved 400 words (that could've been 160 words), the article fails and then I read 3,000 words about how much WN sucks and how it is a dying project and that reviewers need to review more. I am exhausted by that adolescent nonsense. When I talk about "humility" and "ego" here, what I am trying to convey (maybe clumsily) is that we are engaged in a righteous endeavor at this place: Citizen journalism. I am (mostly) cool with this or any other committee we might form, but we must maintain our focus on the news. While a long way from perfect, some incredible things have happened here. Sadly, many of the WMF people appear to be unable to understand or appreciate much of that. We'll just have to see where all of that goes.--Bddpaux (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If the committee is going to be empowered to change policies without a vote to approve them by the community, then I would oppose it. That's not stated in the proposal but it is suggested in Michael.C.Wright's comments below. However, if the committee were empowered to announce proposals which would be subject to a yes-or-no vote by the community and only take effect if approved, then I would be fine with that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do indeed intend for the committee to act without direct community vote on every action. The committee could choose to propose changes for community vote, but I think that's no different from what is currently happening and is not what I envision.
The intent is to reduce the barrier to action by enabling a smaller group of people, who the community votes on to represent them in making big, sweeping, even radical changes to our entire system.
We've been talking about the same problems for over twelve years but we essentially have the same system that has produced the same results (some of which I find valuable, others not so much).
If we want different results we must do something different.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 18:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support this, but with a few considerations:
  1. The committee should have a clear objective and scope.
  2. There should be some limitations or boundaries within which the committee must operate (for example, focusing on improving the current article publication process).
  3. The committee should first submit its report after the defined duration, and then begin implementing policy changes in a gradual, sequential manner. This way, if anything becomes too controversial, other editions can step in.
But yes, I think if we can pull this off successfully, it will be a net positive for the project. -- Asked42 (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do think we need to be bold to some extent. We are becoming too conservative to implement anything new or make any changes. If we aren't bold now, I am afraid we might not get another chance later.
But it's also true that being emotional and bold is not enough, we also have to maintain credibility and responsibility. -- Asked42 (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to bog down the discussion with too many details, as that tends to stray off scope or result in long posts like this one. However, one of the ideas I had was that the first charter for the committee can't be changed by the committee and it includes an auto-termination of the committee after three months without community support to keep it. But the charter would give the committee carte blanche to do what they deemed necessary, up to and including getting rid of the review process altogether, as has been floated by others before. I don't necessarily agree with it, but the data doesn't lie. What we're doing now hasn't worked for us for over a decade.
Since the goal is to reduce barriers to action, the proposal is not to first report, and ask to act. It is to act and then report. I see no reason to have the committee if it first deliberates, then comes to the community for more deliberation. We can already do that without the committee (and have been for years).
I understand if this part of the proposal turns people off. I know it's risky and a bit radical. But so is a wiki with a peer review, gate-keeping system. And looking back at past discussions, we have been chewing at this for years. The same problems were discussed with Jimbo in 2013 and a lot of the same justifications for the status quo are being rehashed. We have not progressed since then.
The graph below hasn’t been updated this year, but it remains illustrative. It’s hard to argue the current system is effective or that slow and incremental changes have reversed the decline. The surge in publication during April and May of this year showed real progress within a month and it was one of the longest periods I know of in which the standard review system was not adhered to and we just happed to be collecting data. If we can match that pace while keeping corrections and retractions low, I believe we’ll have a strong case to present to the SPTF for keeping en.WN open. As it stands, publication in October is likely below 2024 levels, as it was in September.
The number of pages edited (excluding redirects and non content pages) by Users (excluding Anonymous, group bot, and name bot) on English Wikinews in 2024.
The number of pages edited (excluding redirects and non content pages) by Users (excluding Anonymous, group bot, and name bot) on English Wikinews.
As it stands, I believe we are proving the SPTF report correct; we can not effectively evolve and can't let go of a failed model.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 23:27, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But I still have to point out that enwn is only one language edition of Wikinews. Of course, the other Wikinews editions are very quiet nowadays, but we can see that enwn still receives effective, non-advertising submissions every day — the only problem is that their quality varies greatly and they are difficult to get reviewed. In my experience, publishing an article on enwn can indeed drive one mad; if that frustration could be reduced, enwn would clearly be able to produce a great deal of content. In summary, reform would be useful — but not in order to become a revisionist, merely to reform. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since @Michael.C.Wright thinks so too, then let's hurry up. Could we create some kind of pure-voting interface, with a two-day voting period? First, we reach consensus on whether a certain policy — or several policies — should be reformed, and then let the draft committee draft the new policy text afterwards. Sheminghui.WU (talk) 03:08, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the drafters could list the main points of the reform line by line, and then hold another one-day vote on them. In this way, the reform could be completed within just a few days. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are trying to convey, and I share a similar frustration.
I suggested submitting the report first and then implementing the changes for a few reasons:
  1. After a major policy change is implemented, the community still needs to be notified in order for the policy to actually be applied; otherwise, it will remain only documented and not widely followed.
  2. Suppose the committee acts first and submits its report after three months. If editors later discover a radical change, they may still oppose it; and if there is strong objection at that point would the change be reverted?
This is why submitting the report first gives the community an early understanding of what is being proposed. In my view, that is a much safer and more transparent approach. -- Asked42 (talk) 07:45, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThe funny thing is: about 9 things are being said here, and I hardly disagree with any of those things! I am very happy to say: We do journalism here. That is what we do. Having 700 people here per week or 7 people here per week is of little concern to me, whatever the WMF decides for our fate. I do care about readership and I do support the Be Bold! paradigm. But I don't support bad writing/bad publication. I never will -- ever. One focus (which I am toying with) is to build "boxes" within which new reporters can write/contribute. So, you came here and presume you're Mickey Spillane -- well, you aren't. Sorry. But: we'll help you get there! (And "boxes" was just a quick word I came up with, so don't flame me!) Little articles, build up your skills and the scope of your abilities and very soon: BOOM! You're rocking around this place! That is my larger hope. Maybe a committee is an OK idea. I stand by my weak support vote.--Bddpaux (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I am opposing because this proposal would allow the committee to impose its policy changes without a community vote to approve them, and I don't think that's appropriate. Yes, we need some kind of change, but not where three people are empowered to make the changes without community approval. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I suggest anyone who wants to make any changes that this committee would be making instead simply put them forth for the community to approve or deny. Tduk (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OpposeI also opposed this. Gryllida 12:19, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Source Helper


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The proposal to add add the SourceHelper script as a default gadget was successful. Documentation about the script is available here. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 16:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a user script, sourceHelper, which can make adding sources to articles quicker and more convenient. If anyone is interested, they can try it out. Documentation is available here. The user only needs to enter the URL of the source and in an ideal case it will extract all the parameters for that source automatically and add it to the appropriate section of the page, arranged by date. This is something like the auto citation generation on Wikipedia or like the ProveIt gadget. -- Asked42 (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I personally think given the feedback from the Task Force, that we should seriously consider using inline citations to make verification easier/faster. Maybe I'll formally propose that and see what the community thinks. We need to do something to get some publishing momentum going again.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 17:18, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael.C.Wright: That could be a proposal to consider. Just to clarify, the script is not for inline citations; it will add the source using {{source}} template in the sources section. -- Asked42 (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I got that. It does seem handy and our sources section does trip up some people. I'll start recommending it when I see that the sources section isn't completed properly. 👍Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 18:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added a sentence to suggest it when someone uses a "Write an article" button, i.e., anything that pre-loads Template:New page. That might help.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 20:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that will be helpful. Instead of directly specifying the script name to use, maybe we could create a dedicated page (like Wikinews:Article assistance tools) where we list different tools that users can use to assist with article creation. Then, we can mention that page's name in the preload template. I think this would be more helpful. -- Asked42 (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this could be very helpful. Is this something you would like to put together? I can, but we're low on active reviewers and admins, so my time has become more limited with trying to keep the lights on.
Even if it gets approved as a default gadget, it might help to have a central location documenting various tools.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 16:39, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael.C.Wright: Yes, I do think it would be greatly beneficial to create a central documentation page for all useful scripts and tools. Could it be something like en:w:Wikipedia:User scripts/List, or should we make it a more specific documentation page? Asked42 (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It might be beneficial to eventually do both, but starting with a broad list of tools available. An all-inclusive list could also help us identify areas of strength and weakness as far as what tools are currently available. This may also help us to not re-invent the wheel as we work to improve our processes.
Ideally, each tool should have dedicated documentation on its purpose and use. Contributors could use that documentation to make an informed decision as to which tools best-fit their workflow and goals.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 15:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael.C.Wright: I have started the page Wikinews:Gadgets and Tools. This page will list all the gadgets and useful scripts. We can create separate subpages for those scripts or gadgets that don't already have proper documentation. Asked42 (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dont like inline citations as they seldom are the real source of info. Like abc.net.au is a source that says that a politician said that there will be elections next week. No need to shove abc into reader face, best to note the politicians name. Gryllida 21:07, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Japanese Wikinews uses in-text footnotes, for example:w:n:ja:自公連立政権解消 企業団体献金問題で隔たり. It's indeed a rather different attempt. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know whether Mr. Michael C. Wright’s ideas are related to the difficulties we encountered during the FUSION interview, but that actually has no necessary connection with whether or not there are citations in the article. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:20, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw this mention and was on a Wikibreak for a while. Sorry for the delayed response. To explain my thoughts behind using in-line citations here: I believe inline citations would strengthen Wikinews articles for the same reasons they are often used in research papers: they allow readers and reviewers to verify each statement’s origin, evaluate the credibility of sources, and trace the factual basis of the reporting.
They also will likely reduce reviewer workload by clearly indicating which parts of the article are supported by cited material. This is why I developed and recommend {{Verify}}, which is essentially a temporary, in-line citation.
Finally, they promote good journalistic practice by reminding contributors that every factual statement must be verifiable and supported by a reliable source, reinforcing Wikinews’ core commitment to accuracy and transparency.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 14:24, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Okay, that's what we should do. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Can someone explain [7] this comment which appears to be saying not to use scoop? Tduk (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Newsletter proposal

Hello, someone familiar with API, suggest to write

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes please update it if you can Gryllida 13:44, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think admins or reviewers can work on this in background to other tasks... Gryllida 13:46, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Water_cooler/proposals/archives/2025/November&oldid=4979865"