Wikinews talk:Newsworthiness

Expansion

Following some [not so] recent discussions at the policy WC, i've decided to take a hack at trying to determine what is "newsworthy" enough for inclusion here. I think it's important to have this, to avoid future confusion over our definition of newsworthiness. Please feel free to change or remove stuff you disagree with (but please bring the issue over here). Tempodivalse [talk] 04:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Essay status

Recently, "newsworthiness" has been part of the criteria to publish news articles, yet this is still an "essay". What's the point of enforcing the "newsworthiness" if it's still an essay? Will it retain the "essay" status? --George Ho (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

An essay can be about something that's enforced. A lot of documentation on Wikinews has lesser status than the thing it documents; best not to underestimate important principles based on the status of pages describing them. Newsworthiness has always been part of the criteria to publish news articles. The community spend many years slowly thrashing out how to articulate the principles involved.

That said, it's probably reasonable by now to promote this to a guideline; in practice it's heavily relied upon. --Pi zero (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

On reflection, I'm a little concerned about instruction creep. Some things described here are policy, others are guideline or simply convention. --Pi zero (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Then you need a consensus to promote the essay to a "guideline" status. Right now, I see many people becoming increasingly frustrated with a very low monthly amount of published articles. Also, how can consensus be achieved with the very low community here? --George Ho (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The best way this can be helped is if each one of us writes one story a week. This can be your own or this can be picking on someone else's draft that just appeared in the newsroom and is newsworthy. --Gryllida (chat) 08:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand, maybe the whole page should be written from scratch in order to retain the essay status. --George Ho (talk) 07:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the way the page is written; seriously, it's a high-quality document.

"many people becoming increasingly frustrated"? Nah, newcomers being frustrated is a constant on any project that maintains standards (it happens on Wikipedia too, but they get away with it partly by —come to think of it— unconscious misdirection, channeling that frustration into discussions that ultimately contribute to the project's toxic social atmosphere). Well, that, plus also-usual flak from off-project factions that lack tolerance for projects that work differently than theirs do. News production is hard, which is part of what makes it worth doing (that was demonstrated by the project fork a few years ago, which died of insufficiently high standards).

Moreover, though, I'm not proposing any change in the status of the principles involved; I only meant to suggest a change in the status of the page, which describes things ranging from, as mentioned, policies to conventions. Anyone who doesn't take pages such as this, or WN:PILLARS, seriously because they're called "essays" is missing the point. So the more I think about it, the more it seems we're better off leaving it as-is. --Pi zero (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

There is w:template:Supplement, but it's used as clarification for one of existing rules there. It can be copied here, right? --George Ho (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Re whether a typical Wikipedia template can be used here, I know of three positions: no, because the licenses are incompatible; yes, because the license difference doesn't apply to code (that position sounds hinky to me); yes, because simple templates are below the level of originality for copyright to kick in anyway. However, this [supplement thing] strikes me as rather bureaucratic. And, not thoroughly vetted by the community is clearly wrong in this case. That's an argument in favor of just changing the tag here to acknowledge this is, in fact, a guideline. --Pi zero (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I would support such a change: that is, to mark this as a guideline (or a policy). I personally consider this a well written, concise and enforced document. --Gryllida (chat) 06:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Policy

@Pi zero, George Ho: If we want to elevate this to policy, it needs careful consideration and to put forward for consensus from Wikinewsies. --SVTCobra 20:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I see that the template has just policies underneath the three. What about "Wikinews:Style guide" (guideline), which is included in Template:Policy nav1? --George Ho (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. Something to ponder. --SVTCobra 20:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The name of the template is simplified; it does say 'policies and guidelines'. This page is descriptive on about the same level as the style guide; I think it's happy where it is. --Pi zero (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Re-evalutation

Elsewhere on this wiki, there are concerns/discussions about whether the current notion of Freshness, where new content needs to be reviewed and published within 5-7 days, allows for a functioning website. Right now, we haven’t seen anything published in the last week, and all new content from the past week is under threat of being deleted because of poor management of this site and its procedues.

I propose that there is still archival value in publishing this 'stale' material after review - this also takes pressure off of reviewers and removes and fear contributors have that their articles will be deleted through no fault of their own. This makes for a healthy editing environment. I'm seeing that wikinews serves as an interesting snapshot, which en.wiki does not really serve adequately. I further suggest that, in order to allow for more ‘visible freshness’ - that there is another mechanism by which “fresh” content can be viewed, without having to go through this rigorous review process that it appears no one has an interest in doing. There may be room to refine the review process entirely, but I think these steps will at least allow wikinews to continue to exist. I welcome any thoughts. Tduk (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Journalistic rigor is a hallmark of this project. To maintain viability, it must be maintained. News is built around the word 'new'. After 16 years of involvement here, I oppose lowering our standards. Making the 'flow' of writing, submitting, reviewing and publishing move faster is 100% great in my book! I can understand writers' frustration, but (again) this project is run by volunteers.--Bddpaux (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Rather than just disagreeing with the suggestions people are coming up with, can you offer your own solution that will work in the very short term? That is what is needed. It is confusing to me that you think people will eventually magically swarm to this site to do, essentially, work[1] that only you seem to believe in (I say that looking at the comments under this thread). It's also not clear what you think that work is - people have been writing articles and they have all been going stale. What is the solution for now, that doesn't rely on you doing every review, which is ridiculous? Tduk (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your ability to read minds. That would be impressive if you were not wrong. I hardly think ANYONE will swarm to this sight. Without counting hard, you're written about 11,000 words sharing your opinion about all manner of stuff around here. This is a wiki and doing that is (mostly) OK. The Admins of this sight have little intention of lowering the standards of this site. I never said I would do all of the reviewing -- but I will do more. I hope you can take those busy fingers of yours and go somewhere and engage in journalism. Its a big busy world out there. This is an imperfect project, run entirely by volunteers.--Bddpaux (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I missed it; did you offer a solution that would address the problem everyone else in this thread is talking about, as I had asked you to do, somewhere in that text? Tduk (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Im concerned you are talking in circles at this point. Several admins have firmly stated they have no interest in loosening the project's freshness guidelines. The project is ran by volunteers and there apparently is not enough volunteer time available to get the articles reviewed and published in a timely manner. It is what it is. Its a fundamental flaw that causes this project go not work in practice. Lofi Gurl (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

This debate has been going on for weeks with nothing having been accomplished other than morale being even lower than it was at the beginning of ladt month. Lofi Gurl (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, on wiki's, the admins do not have more sway when setting policies than the regular contributors. See, for instance, WP:NOBIGDEAL and WP:ANOT. That is why I think someone (not me, maybe @Sheminghui.WU or @Lofi Gurl or @BilboBeggins or @Darkfrog24) should put forth a modification to the wording on this policy page that will address the issues. Otherwise, I believe you're right, this project may be a dead end. Tduk (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I think something should be done in the wake of what happened, with discussion on Meta and proposal to close Wikinews.

The project should be reformed and demonstrate that we are useful by publishing more news. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

That was a long time ago. You'll notice that it's administrators who get to vote on DS issues. Other editors get to speak but not to say. Generally, I'd say Wikinews is a much smaller place than en.wiki, and it's okay if our admins don't play the same role.Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

21:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

This project is not even vaguely a dead end. And, as a person who has appointed themselves the barometer of morale at this project, it is critical that you know that. You were quick to note "everyone else" in your above bit. I absolutely noted that roughly 41% of everyone else disagreed with you. Now, I think you live in NYC, don't you? There must be LOADS of stories happening around you. In the mood to work on one? ...or just keep up the adolescent pot-stirring. One of those actions is helpful -- the other is harmful.--Bddpaux (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

This current version is way too relaxed, it used to be 2-3 days from event date to publishing. Let's see what happens in next couple weeks as I would like to fill Wikinews:ReviewLog and analyse it. Gryllida 02:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree that as far as freshness goes, it is too relaxed. I also think it's worth considering something other than an all-or-nothing approach; there is value to having nonfresh content. Tduk (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Agree with this sentiment 100%.--Bddpaux (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

> Right now, we haven’t seen anything published in the last week, and all new content from the past week is under threat of being deleted because of poor management of this site and its procedues.

I believe this is the stated problem. If so, the fix is more active reviewers.

Keeping unreviewed, unpublished material presents other problems:

• We must ensure readers know the article has not been published or reviewed, therefore none of the content is known to meet our standards for accuracy, neutrality, copyright, plagiarism, etc.
• How do we prevent "scope creep" and the article becoming essentially an encyclopedic article, with continued editing, and no longer a "snapshot in time"?
• What does the project gain from having that content around still (I understand the benefits to the individual contributors)

How would you recommend we address those questions and concerns?Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 18:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to ask what the project gains from having this material - clearly the project preserves archives of all its news stories, so whatever benefit applies to those applies to stuff that was deleted because of poor management. We actually have scope creep happening now because of the week it takes to publish an article - people are updating (and in some cases being asked to update) the article with more recent news to enhance "freshness". This feels like trying to cheat a broken system to me.

none of the content is known to meet our standards for accuracy, neutrality, copyright, plagiarism, etc. - en.wikipedia has ways of dealing with most of these issues; why is the system here so different? It seems the fact that the articles are locked down when published is one reason they need to be thoroughly vetted rather than on wikipedia. Really, i guess the question is why reviewers are not more analogous to "auto confirmed" editors on wikipedia. We're in a hard position right now, because I believe a great number of editors have already left because of this impasse. Tduk (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Our archived articles do have long-term value. They were reviewed, published, and represent a time-stamped snapshot of what was known when they were written. Drafts that never passed review aren’t equivalent to that record, and publishing them later risks confusing our purpose as a news project.

The comparison to Wikipedia also isn’t quite parallel. Wikipedia is iterative by design; Wikinews is about fixed, verified reporting. That’s why pre-publication review is essential, not just a trust check, but a safeguard for neutrality, sourcing, and context. If we remove that distinction, we lose one of the few things that makes Wikinews different and I would argue valuable. See the following to better understand the role of a reviewer as currently defined: User:Michael.C.Wright/Review process study/Reviewer lane

I do agree the current process creates a kind of “deadline” pressure on contributors and reviewers, but I would argue that pressure is both intentional and necessary. Updating an article that has gone stale (for whatever reason) isn’t "scope creep." It’s part of keeping the piece within the bounds of our freshness requirement. To me, that’s a signal we need to address reviewer capacity and reviewer workflow, not a reason to weaken the principle of freshness itself. If the community wants to explore publishing older material, we’d need strong safeguards: clear labeling, separation from current news, and language that preserves the “snapshot” nature of the project.

Pinging @Lofi Gurl, our newest reviewer (congratulations!) for input. Lofi Gurl has no experience yet in reviewing, so their perspective here would not only represent an opinion unshaped by existing reviewer culture, but also reflect the view of the next generation of reviewers, an opportunity to help shape Wikinews’ future direction.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 13:25, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Stating that we need to get more reviewers isn't all that helpful if a way to get them isn't suggested - we don't have much activity in general on here, and my feeling is that this system is part of the reason.

Maybe focusing more on original reporting and interviews, which as we've discussed has more forgiveness regarding freshness, would help bring people to the project and get enough people involved that reviewing classic-style news articles is once again possible and useful.

Again, I agree that the deadline pressure is good, but it's not good when that pressure can't be fixed by the contributor - which is what's happening when there aren't enough reviewers. In that case, you have someone trying to contribute and you are essentially (as a site) saying "thank you but it is not worth our time to use your contribution". Tduk (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I believe our content should be fresh and reflect a "snapshot in time". That said, I have found success turning stale Wikinews articles into Wikipedia articles. Travis Timmerman is just one example. You can dig through my ENWP contributions and find many more. I propose this as a possible solution for the loss of news articles due to process failures. They don't cease to be facts, right? Let me know what you think Lofi Gurl (talk) 00:41, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

It loses the snapshot aspect though, doesn't it? A snapshot doesn't have to be fresh to be valuable. Tduk (talk) 05:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

When I came to this site, I was interested in helping it stay around. I saw that to become a reviewer you had to have several published articles. I have been submitting articles, but because there are no reviewers, they are not getting published and are being marked as stale. What is the path forward to get more reviewers if we aren't publishing anything? Tduk (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

To move forward, it’s important that everyone actively contributing to articles also participate in the ongoing discussions about how we can improve our processes.

Successful publication relies on articles being reviewed and verified as compliant with our policies and guidelines. The review process becomes much more efficient when submissions are already close to meeting those standards before they’re posted. Building a shared understanding of the relevant policies, and prioritizing their application during the writing stage, can help ensure more articles make it through review and publication, even when reviewer capacity is limited.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 19:43, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

That sounds fine on paper, but does it explain how we go forward? What could I have done differently to have articles that were ignored for a week get looked at by somebody? I'm trying to help here. Tduk (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
How about trying this: go through the review queue and pick one or more articles to {{Pre-review}}. Do a full review as if you were a reviewer; you can make small edits, but avoid getting too involved in rewriting or developing the article yourself (as defined by reviewer policy). Use the template (it has documentation) to report your pre-review. The goal is to see firsthand what’s required of a reviewer and what would make their job easier.

Also keep in mind that once an article is published, there’s only a 24-hour window for any corrections. After that, anything missed by the reviewer can only be addressed through a formal {{correction}} or a retraction. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 23:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

How does that help if no one is actually reviewing articles? What am I missing? Tduk (talk) Tduk (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

The answer to both of your questions might be answered for you in the process of conducting the pre-review or in understanding why you don't want to do the pre-review.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 23:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

You do realize that is not a helpful answer. I am here because I was asked to help out with this project. I haven't seen anything suggested that looks like it can save things from what's happening; I see a lot of long-term solutions for what is right now a very bad short-term problem. If I do the pre-reviews, the work still goes nowhere, as no one will perform the final review. When I came here, I was told "write some articles, have stuff published, and you can eventually start reviewing". I wrote some articles and they are slowly being marked as stale without any review at all. I don't see any indication that doing pre-reviews won't have the same outcome. I'm not interesting in throwing away my time. Neither is anyone else, as far as I know. Asking a newcomer to magically present a way to fix a problem when none of the established and more familiar users seem to have any ideas also doesn't seem like a great way to go foward. Tduk (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

You're not the first person to notice this problem. If you look through the history of this page alone, you'll see it's been a topic of discussion for years. (Remember I mentioned resistance to change in a different discussion and you just saw inaction.)

I understand your frustration. I share it.

I can’t promise that continuing to participate will lead to change. But I can say with certainty that if people don’t stay involved, change becomes much harder.

Taking part in pre-reviews not only helps articles move forward, it also deepens your familiarity with our policies and guidelines and shows the community your potential as a reviewer.

We truly do need more active reviewers. Since you’ve expressed interest in that role, one of the most effective ways to work toward it is by engaging directly and contributing where you can. I used past pre-reviews in my own request for reviewer privileges, and I believe they strengthened my case.

Of course, you could also decide to step away.

> Asking a newcomer to magically present a way to fix a problem when none of the established and more familiar users seem to have any ideas also doesn't seem like a great way to go forward.

But you have come here with suggestions. You just don’t seem interested in exploring other approaches.

None of the articles that went stale did so because of the Freshness guideline. Changing that guideline wouldn’t address the underlying problem, which is that we don’t have enough active reviewers.

I’ve tried to point you toward a path that would directly address that issue. Becoming a reviewer would make a tangible difference, more so than debating policy changes that wouldn’t solve the core problem.

At this point, I don’t think continuing to circle around the same arguments is productive. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:11, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Again, you're only suggesting "do this work I am suggesting and maybe you will eventually be able to help"; I already did that and it did not work. While doing it I saw others being discouraged. The path you are suggesting is not only not promising, I think it will take too long. If I became a reviewer, it would not be enough. Perhaps changing the system so that no articles can be submitted if there are not reviewers committed to looking at them in a timely fashion would serve morale better. I have had an article waiting to be reviewed for a full month, so at this point it is hard to believe that the little changes being suggested, and the little help I can offer, will be enough. We will need big changes in the system, and honestly I would hope someone more involved in the project would see that. Tduk (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree that we need big changes in the system.

But not being able to submit the article if reviewers are not available at the moment is another extremity. What if they will be available in half a week? What if they have a glance at an article and decide they can quickly review it? BilboBeggins (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

There is not much point in this rule if the news are not getting published. I worked on an article and rewrote it several times, with new developments. The reviewers didn not come, and the article was marked for deletion. I am redeveloping article again now.

How do English Wikinews intend to attract new editors, or retain existing ones, if you simply do not publish the articles by editors and delete them instead? Who would want to write the articles?

On my side, I can be reviewer BilboBeggins (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

> On my side, I can be reviewer

Don't wait. Jump in now. I would recommend you start using {{Pre-review}} to practice as a reviewer now and to get some pre-reviews documented as a way to demonstrate your ability to do reviews. It will also help to better-familiarize you with all of our policies and guidelines.

This means you should avoid getting overly involved with the development of an article you are pre-reviewing (just as a reviewer can not), doing the tedious work of fixing things for the style guide, grammar, etc, and advising other contributors on ways to get their articles closer to a publishable state (verifying facts, checking neutrality, etc). The less work a reviewer has to do the more likely they are to do reviews.

You can already help manage articles in the queues by checking for WN:Freshness and moving them through the WN:PROD process.

Folks that are willing to do the work of improving someone else's article and work through the questions and debates that inevitably arise when one sticks to the PaG's with the pre-review are good candidates for reviewer.

You can also get engaged with other discussions happening at the various Water-cooler sub-pages. We're trying to reform the review process, move away from LiquidThreads, and generally drum-up more activity. A good reviewer not only does good reviews, but is engaged in the entire project.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 18:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

" you should avoid getting overly involved with the development of an article you are pre-reviewing (just as a reviewer can not), doing the tedious work of fixing things for the style guide, grammar, etc, and advising other contributors on ways to get their articles closer to a publishable state (verifying facts, checking neutrality, etc)." - I should avoiding all of this? Then what should I do?

What is pre-reviewing actually about? Is it about editing what is wrong in the article, or observing what is not optimal in the article and pointing it out? BilboBeggins (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

> I should avoiding all of this? Then what should I do?

Being a reviewer means balancing the need to stay independent from article development with the responsibility to help make unpublishable work publishable. When an article requires extensive or substantive edits, those changes must be requested from others, which inevitably slows the process.

> What is pre-reviewing actually about? Is it about editing what is wrong in the article, or observing what is not optimal in the article and pointing it out?

Pre-reviewing is when a contributor performs the functions of a reviewer without having the ability to publish an article. Anyone can conduct a pre-review by following reviewer standards — improving articles and giving feedback to help bring them closer to publication. You can’t become “too involved” in a pre-review, but it’s still good practice to recognize when you are and note your awareness of the boundary, based on what you learn from policies and talk-page discussions.

I completed several pre-reviews before becoming a reviewer and was able to point to published articles that included my pre-review comments as examples of how I would operate in the role. That experience strengthened my reviewer request and, more importantly, helped me understand what reviewing involves and how our policies and guidelines apply in practice.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 20:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

• @Michael.C.Wright: You wrote above, "None of the articles that went stale did so because of the Freshness guideline." However, I do see articles going stale -- maybe it's for other reasons, but at any rate they aren't getting proper reviews. For example, Locals differ on root cause after building partially collapses in the Bronx was created on October 1, the day of the original event, and submitted for review on that day. It didn't get reviewed, and it was tagged as stale on October 13. Then the article creator added some more information and submitted it for review again on October 14. And on October 18, it got tagged as stale again. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  I added it stale because I thought it was @Metropolitan90 BigKrow (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  Well, that's my point. The article didn't get reviewed in time to avoid being tagged as stale. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  Articles go stale whether or not they’re reviewed. WN:Freshness ensures we publish news, not history.

Staleness often results from too few active reviewers. Only one published in September [2] and two since June[3],[4]. Contributors can help by checking their own work against WN:CS, WN:NPOV, WN:CG, WN:SG, and WN:C before submitting, and by pre-reviewing others’ drafts.

You don’t need reviewer rights to do pre-reviews.

For "Locals differ on root cause after building partially collapses in the Bronx", the focal event, a partial building collapse due to a gas explosion on October 1, is stale. Per Wikinews:Gatwicking, refocus by finding a newer development, updating the headline and lede, citing two independent sources, and trimming outdated content. Simply adding updated content to an article does not refocus it.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 13:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Unexperienced editors may not be aware of problems in their articles without a review. I know there are links to our policies everywhere, but expecting new editors to pre-review is an unreslistic expectation in my opinion. I dont think new contributors will be interested in gatwicking their stale articles if there is no guaruntee they can get reviewed in time to be published, especially when the article already went stale while waiting for review in the first place. Lofi Gurl (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

What do you propose?Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 13:20, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I dunno. Perhaps holding onto stale/abandoned articles for longer, and creating a template that encourages gatwicking, or using the info and sources to expand/improve Wikipedia and Wikiquote entries. I consider this "collaboration/coordination between sister projects". This was my solution for when many of my stories went stale while waiting for review. Lofi Gurl (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

> Perhaps holding onto stale/abandoned articles for longer,

When you say 'hold on to them longer,' do you mean change our Newsworthiness guidelines and publish older articles? Or are you suggesting simply holding them as drafts longer but still eventually deleting them?Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 13:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

How long do we hold on to stale articles before deleting them? Lofi Gurl (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I think a week is the typical number for non-OR. Maybe stressing shorter articles/headine/lede only would be helpful. Tduk (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

> and creating a template that encourages gatwicking

Feel free, even encouraged to create the template and start using it as you start reviewing.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 13:27, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. I have no experience in template space whatsoever, uncharted territory. Lofi Gurl (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Unexperienced editors also don't realize that it's very possible they will put a lot of work into an article and have it ignored. Tduk (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

"Articles go stale whether or not they’re reviewed. WN:Freshness ensures we publish news, not history." No, Freshness ensures we publish nothing instead of history. That is the problem we are seeing. We need to re-assess whether the notion of "freshness" needs to be rethought entirely; is there value in having historical news? Clearly there is. We keep articles after they are published. In one year, why is the article that was published "on time and fresh" more valuable than the one that did not get reviewed in a timely manner due to a poorly thought-out workflow? Freshness is important for the frontpage, but that is all. I'd even argue that this obsession with freshness is contributing to the site being in such a dire state as it is now. Tduk (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

We would have to completely overhaul the project scope if we were to go that route. What is "historical news"? Lofi Gurl (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd argue that's not the case - the project scope also includes, right now, original reporting and interviews, as well as news. Anyway, "historical news" is all over this site. The site keeps all old content. Does it have value? Why? Does this site have any value if it isn't at least publishing one news article a day? Why? Tduk (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

" No, Freshness ensures we publish nothing instead of history. That is the problem we are seeing." That's a bingo. BilboBeggins (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

We gotta change the freshness threshold to like 14 days then. The project can barely publish an article per week in its current state. Either that or we agressively ping all the reviewers who are not actively on some sort of Wikibreak to increase chances of publication. Lofi Gurl (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I think we have to rethink what Freshness is supposed to accomplish and completely rework the approach to it. It doesn't make any sense to throw away anyone's work because no one can be bothered to review it on time. Tduk (talk) 05:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

• Much like Michael C. Wright -- I understand your frustration. Noone here is treating your work with any malice (or ignoring your work on purpose) -- I have been where you now are. Keep at it. Maybe (seriously), not too far down the road, you can become a reviewer.--Bddpaux (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, this is kinda what I thought when I first started writing here. Lofi Gurl (talk) 11:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

There's also the question of who is the site useful for? What it's been doing for the past few months at least - occasionally (not even daily) publishing random news stories that may or not be particularly important doesn't seem to be something that will create a destination site for anyone. Do we know who the readers are? Tduk (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Ive always wondered who exactly reads our stuff. Page view data can be accessed through the page's edit history Lofi Gurl (talk) 10:51, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I think this site is better percieved as an archive of unrelated news articles rather than an up to date news source. Lofi Gurl (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I disagree kindly I like wikinews always have time is key. @Lofi Gurl BigKrow (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

There's no reason to apply staleness to original reporting that has unique information, or interviews. For short-term pieces of news, freshness does make sense. There are other kinds of news content completely ignored - anything that falls under en's one event policy for instance, or infopages on various newspeople and outlets. There is a lot of content we can generate to supplement the recent news - which again, I suggest no one is really interested in doing by simple demonstration that no one has been doing it. If no one wants to do the work, maybe you are asking them to do the wrong work. Tduk (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

and again, there's absolutely no harm in publishing something after it is "fresh" because no one could be bothered to review it. we don't need it to be on the top of the feed but it adds to the overall body of work. Tduk (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

In fact, as a Chinese reporter, we have some understanding of the readership of Chinese Wikinews audiences, because we've conducted many surveys and similar events (as part of our news articles). (We still have one at the top of our homepage right now). I don't know if English Wikinews could do something similar. However, we have a comment section here, which zhwn've been considering introducing recently. (Although this type of wiki comment section isn't very appealing to readers). ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 06:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Or change reviewing procedure. BilboBeggins (talk) 10:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

• I suggest that freshness be judged primarily on when the article is submitted for review relative to when the event happened. For some reason people occasionally submit articles which are clearly stale by months or years, and those should continue to be ruled out as stale. But there should be some more flexibility in terms of freshness if there is a delay in the article being reviewed. So, for example, an obituary published outside the current 7-day limit should not be a problem, since the deceased person is still dead. Some of our culture and entertainment coverage, similarly, doesn't lose much if it gets published outside the 7-day limit. The focus should be whether the article has or has not been superseded by later events. I don't think we necessarily want to extend the 7-day limit between the event date and publication date for all articles in all categories, but for some categories it might be appropriate to do so. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't disagree with everything I've read here, but we must maintain JOURNALISTIC STANDARDS. We try to run this like a news organization. The key word is 'news'. Once again, here at the old WN -- we have 723 people prattling on about what is wrong, and maybe 5 people doing the work. My professional work demands a lot of my time. I wish I could do more here. But (for the 87th time) -- we need more 'work' and less 'talk'. Get the news, right the news, submit the news -- and move on.--Bddpaux (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Asking that people who want to write news also review other peoples' news may seem like a good idea, but like on en.wiki, different people have different strengths, and the fact is that no one seems to be interested or able to review the news in a timely manner. If no one wishes to engage in a system as it currently is, it might make sense to rethink the system instead of telling people to do work they are unsuited for. This just leads to lack of engagement - which is what we have now. Tduk (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

All of my articles on English Wikinews have never been reviewed and published within a week, and often I don’t even receive formal feedback within that period. I am a fairly loyal Wikinews reporter, but what about most new volunteers? How are they supposed to tolerate this? (Of course, I don’t really support his treatise about the “seven-day deadline exceptions.”) ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 01:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Another idea is maybe we should have much shorter, more easily verified articles. Tduk (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not true and not the point here. In times when there are no reviewers, even a one-sentence news item cannot be published; we cannot give up on the quality of our articles like that. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 04:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I do agree, I'm just thinking of ideas because there seems to be so much resistance to reforming this process. Tduk (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

It is what it is. I don't know what to do at this point. Even though I'm a reviewer now I don't really know what I'm doing so I can't really help the situation much. My solution to my articles getting wasted because nobody is around to review it has been to just edit Wikipedia instead. Lofi Gurl (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I have been contributing to en.wiki for decades; I was asked to come help here because this site has something to offer wikimedia if it could only start functioning again. Tduk (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

It will, be patient @Tduk BigKrow (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

How do you know? Lofi Gurl (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that article was short enough, and still it was not published. [5]

I wonder why it was not, because one of the reason given was that it could contain more information.

But we could have just puclished the story as it is, and later we could have published another news on the topic. I could have written and puclished it three times, at least, instead it was not published as of now. I am trying to repurpose the article. But better would have been if the article would have published back then. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I had written article and repurposed it two times, and two times it wasn't reviewed in due time. Even though it initially was breaking news but was declined on the basis it wasn't full, which I don't understand since we could have made a new article with newer information. Moreover, had it been published when I submitted it, it would be one of the first English-language articles on the matter BilboBeggins (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. The peer review process is indeed somewhat rigid. For example, in the case of breaking news, incomplete content should not be a factor in the review process(I believe the reviewers have already noticed this now); it can be iterated upon versions after publication, which would only improve the reader experience. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 06:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

The key for news is to be published on time. If I wrote article straight after event occured, but it wasn't published, what can I do? BilboBeggins (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Currently there is nothing you can do. I think this is what needs to be fixed. In fact, I think removing the freshness-to-publish requirement and simply not frontpaging it would be a big help - and it would motivate the current reviewers, who seem to be the ones really pushing that Freshness is important, to review things in a more timely manner. Tduk (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Another major issue with the policy as it currently is, is that it allows for articles which reviewers have a personal dislike/disagreement with to go unpublished without contest. The belief that an article can go stale, with no audit trail, entirely at the behest of the reviewers, and due to absolutely no action from the creator, creates a system where any article can go unpublished arbitrarily. If staleness due to lack of reviewer interest is not a thing, this kind of difficult-to-audit hole falls away - instead, the article needs to actually be acknowledged at some point, and a discussion can ensue. Unaudited automatic deletion of content does not seem like the best idea. Tduk (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

(off topic)Um, by the way, considering the diverse stances/opinions here, and that everyone is an active editor: you are welcome to participate in the discussion at w:m:Requests for comment/Sister Projects next steps. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 09:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, it was that commenting on there that actually brought me here to try to help. Tduk (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Given the project's utter failure to publish articles in the face of a possible closure I am honestly beginning to lean towards just merging this project with Wikipedia at this point. I think the project's best bet to remain viable would be for admins and experienced reviewers to write articles so new reviewers can review them. They are familiar with the site's policies and it may help avoid setbacks during the review process. I had an article go stale after I had made the requested changes less than three hours later, and the story was submitted one day after the focal point event. The way things have been going the last few months has severely damaged morale among reporters. Lofi Gurl (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think merging is an option, I think it would just go away... but I'm not really up on what they plan to do if it is closed. I arrived at apparently the worst time and have only seen morale going down; I fill like some quick fixes are needed to get things even functioning again. There is resistance to that idea. Maybe if we put together a proposal to change the actual text on this policy page to something that can actually work and will never throw away anyone's effort, that might be a good start. I'd prefer it if a more experienced wikinews user would do it rather than if I tried. There really is nothing gained from not releasing stale articles. In fact, it could be argued that not rushing to publish them will make them higher quality. Tduk (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikinews is a good place @Lofi Gurl, never give up. BigKrow (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

You're a new reviewer so try to get support on discord, etc. @Lofi Gurl BigKrow (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

While this is somewhat off-topic (I'm just inviting discussion here), However, this is incorrect when discussing RfC, as RfC clearly does not differentiate between language versions. Perhaps you agree that enwn should be merged into enwp, but this will be and will must be a matter between the two communities. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 01:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

As for the specific issue at hand, WN:FRESHness, I'd say that the current stagnation was not always the case. Basically, I see decent drafts rotting in the hopper while no reviewer gets to them. I have a few ideas for fixing this:

1) Increase reviewer pool. Sounds simple. Is complicated.

2) Divide review response into two categories: Required and Not Required. Publish immediately after the Required issues are addressed, even if you think the drafter was going to do Not Required later. Don't wait. ("But the Not Required thing would have been really cool/a learning experience for the drafter!" TOO BAD! It's about publishing news, not playing pretend school.)

3) If you see a change that needs making, be WN:BOLD and make it yourself. But you're not the drafter? Do it anyway. But you're not the reviewer? Do it anyway. But you are the reviewer? Do it anyway.

4) Allow non-reviewers to remove aged-out drafts from the Review hopper. That might make things seem less cluttered or intimidating to existing reviewers. Unlike subjective issues like whether the article is sourced or written well enough, the date of a focal event is clear and requires no community-approved editorial judgement.

These would change the way we deal with articles somewhat, but they would not reduce quality, which is a concern for many here. Darkfrog24 (talk)

I agree with Darkfrog24's evaluation above and have previously proposed #2. Anyone who supports this should comment there to make clear we are nearing consensus or not.

I also strongly agree with #3 above. Everyone can do a {{Pre-review}} and get an article closer to a publishable state. I think the workload/overhead of the review process is a significant hurdle. If more articles were nearly or entirely publishable before being submitted for review, articles would be published more easily, quickly, and frequently. The review process is at least as involved and time-consuming as writing an article from scratch and the reviewer doesn't necessarily get to choose the topic they're interested in, as contributors do.

#4 is already possible. Anyone can add {{stale}} and eventually {{subst:aband}}. In fact, BigKrow does this regularly.

@Tduck, let's assume we start publishing stale content immediately. How do you propose we do so while simultaneously reducing the workload required by reviewers? Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 16:16, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright re: #4, that's a complicated question and honestly on some level there are no guarantees that it would help with workload. BUT I will say the following : a LOT of time is being invested (by @Bddpaux right now for instance) in gatwicking stale articles. This is all in my opinion a kludge and a waste of everyone's time to confirm to a policy that wasn't all that well thought out. Publishing stale content would free up everyone's which is currently invested in that. Publishing stale content would also improve a lot of morale (see @Lofi Gurl's comments above) and encourage overall use - in theory helping #1 above, getting more reviewers. NOT losing content is also a big plus. What we do with historically already-stale content is up for debate, but there isn't that much new content being made right now, so it's hard to really argue that publishing borderline content which didn't get published because of lack of reviewers would hugely increase workload, since it would eliminate arguing about it and gatwicking the content. Tduk (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Again, how does publishing stale content save reviewers time? Explain what you think a reviewer will do to publish a stale article. Are you suggesting we do not review stale content at all?Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 19:20, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I said clearly @Michael.C.Wright, it will save time because there won't be so much back and forth debating whether it's stale or whether it needs to be gatwicked. I'm saying a reviewer should consider freshness regarding what to do with the article, but it helps no one to throw away content where the only flaw is that no one reviewed in time. It only serves to hurt morale of those who put the time into making it, and perhaps it is a time-suck regarding gatwicking or arguing. Tduk (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I am not convinced this is a reason to change our Freshness guideline and I do not support any change to it at this time.

Contributors are strongly encouraged to do everything they can to ensure articles are as close to a publishable state as possible before submitting for review. If there is a delay in the review process, contributors can continue to polish articles in the review queue. An article that is easy to review because it is nearly compliant with all Policies and Guidelines (PaGs) stands the best chance to be reviewed. A hastily and poorly written article that clearly isn't compliant with several PaGs is more likely to be passed over for "the next time," which may never come.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 01:36, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I didn't realize this was still being debated. I thought the "publishing stale content" argument from last month was done and over with. Lofi Gurl (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

What was the final consensus on it? If the conversation is closed, feel free to use {{Archive_top}} and bottom to clearly indicate it is closed and what the final conclusion was.

However, given discussions elsewhere, I assumed it was not closed, but would certainly welcome it, if it is.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 20:17, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

It was never closed, but I think people kept posting distracting posts trying to avoid reasonable dialog. We would probably benefit from just a simple poll, like "do you think the freshness policy needs rethinking?" Tduk (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

It sounded to me like the majority of people who commented favored _some_ kind of reevaluation of the policy but that is as far as we got. Maybe that should have been the original clearly stated goal, to figure out if that needed to happen. @Metropolitan90 @BilboBeggins @Sheminghui.WU @Darkfrog24 @Lofi Gurl @Bddpaux Tduk (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I believe that some modifications to the policy are possible, and discussion is necessary. Although many people, including myself, feel that certain parts of UserTduk's proposal are partly somewhat radical, I think discussing the policy modifications themselves is appropriate. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

If it's not new, it's not news. We'd only publish things that no one will want to read. There should be only limited exceptions. (For example, we worked out that science news has a natural lag before non-paywalled sources that we can use appear.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

We have a good tradition of academic interviews. Moreover, depending on the availability of volunteers in the relevant field, rapid academic reporting is possible, especially for useful content that the mainstream media might not pay much attention to. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Is it somewhere in the mission statement that this site is "only news"? I think limiting our scope to that can harm the overall usefulness of this project; and as I've said before, if we only value new news, we should delete all content more than a week old. We don't do that, so why not? Tduk (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Our primary mission within the Wikimedia movement is to provide "Free News Sources." However, if there's a consensus, some article archiving is open to discussion. Specifically, I believe it should be considered on a case-by-case basis. For example, if a very good original news article has expired and can no longer be published, the community can decide to archive/publish it on the original date, just without displaying it on the homepage. If someone sees this later article in the news list, they will still read it if they are interested. In the context of policy reform, it is permissible for such things to happen occasionally. However, the news-centric nature of this site shouldn't be relaxed too much, as that would create more chaos. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Someone suggested to me that it might be interesting to also cover news-adjacent things, like the news publishers themselves. That is a topic for later. Tduk (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

That would be great; some interaction would be even better. I think it would also be good to have Wikinews, as a rather unique news media, discussed. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

> Is it somewhere in the mission statement that this site is "only news"?

Yes. From m:Wikinews

Wikinews is a project which aims to collaboratively report and summarize news...

Further, it states our purpose:

Wikinews seeks to create a free source of news...

In fact, "not news" is an accepted justification for speedy deletion.[6]

You can also see WN:NOT that starts by stating:

Wikinews is an online news source and, as a means to that end, also an online community.

One of our pillars states:

A newsworthy article focuses on a news event or phenomenon that is specific, relevant, and fresh.

Our Wikinews:Newsworthiness guideline (this very guideline we're debating) states:

Each Wikinews article focuses on a news event.

Publishing stale content is not publishing news. Stale content is not newsworthy. Publishing stale content still requires the full review process. Therefore publishing stale content will distract from the mission of publishing news. Publishing stale content will therefore have the opposite of the intended consequence; it will further delay the publication of news.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 01:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Along with everything you said, what is the justification for keeping stale already published content around? Tduk (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

> what is the justification for keeping stale already published content around?

Published articles were not stale at the time they were reviewed and published as news. Archiving is a separate process that preserves and often polishes those already-published pieces.

Comparing archived articles to publishing stale ones is a false equivalency. Archiving maintains the record of past reporting, not a justification for releasing outdated news.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 21:01, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

The content I submitted was not stale, in fact it was the first news in English on the subject. How did it get from Breaking news to getting stale? BilboBeggins (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Time without a review. I know it sucks. It has happened to everyone who has been here a while. I've gatwicked one article personally and disliked the process so much I haven't done it again. Most times I'd rather let my content go unpublished (I have it "offline" in personal notes anyway).

But I don't think that publishing stale articles, regardless of why they went stale, improves the quality of our product. I can certainly see where it will improve morale. But for me, it is more important to figure out how or if we can sustain a high quality review process that improves article accuracy and neutrality. I'm not convinced the wiki process has done that with Wikipedia.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 23:56, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Note that you said "improves article accuracy and neutrality". You didn't mention freshness. I think we all agree about that. I guess what I'm angling at is a system where content doesn't get lost - but doesn't get highlighted as "fresh" either. You all know more about this place than I do, which is why I'm mostly questions. I think we both agree gatwicking is not the way forward. Tduk (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I don’t see that. In fact, I see the opposite:

• "I oppose lowering our standards." source
• "This current version is way too relaxed..." source
• "It is what it is. Its a fundamental flaw that causes this project go not work in practice." source
• "If it's not new, it's not news." source

It seems the consensus is that the main problem isn’t the freshness policy itself. Rather, the policy is being invoked as a symptom of deeper issues, such as a shortage of active reviewers.
> I think people kept posting distracting posts trying to avoid reasonable dialog.
I don’t believe anyone participating in this discussion is trying to avoid reasonable dialogue. Most contributors here have been thoughtful and open to revisiting the freshness policy but have not been convinced this is the appropriate course of action.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 01:36, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree that most have been thoughtful and open and helpful, and a diversity of opinions is great. I don't think it's helpful to really talk about the ones who are doing otherwise either. Are you really quoting nonexistant quotes? I can't find the first quote anywhere on this page, and you took @Lofi Gurl's quote out of context; at the very least, she said "We gotta change the freshness threshold to like 14 days then." Your choice of what to quote from her seems at best misguided. I really prefer that we don't do this "he said she said" thing and I absolutely am uncomfortable doing as you seem to have done quoting people somewhat out of context; I'm even uncomfortable quoting her here. Can we just start the poll afresh now that more are aware? Tduk (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I still believe this should be considered on a case-by-case basis. For a simple factual report, publishing it four days later than mainstream media renders it meaningless. However, if it's highly comprehensive and analytical, or in special circumstances—such as significant ideological controversy—and we produce a relatively neutral article, publishing it three or four days later is meaningful. But for an original report known for its engaging, unique, or professional content, a seven-day delay is acceptable; in fact, that's the case. However, how this should be implemented and whether it should be allowed remains to be discussed. Ultimately, extending the freshness period is counterproductive. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Michael.C.Wright that, at least for me, the desire to "liberalize" the freshness policy was intended to alleviate the problem with the shortage of active reviewers. We have seen some improvement in the last week with reviewers actually putting some articles into "publish" status. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:30, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with that; however, I think that the first time, when it was extended from 3 days to a week (or whatever it was) was when this conversation needed to happen. I'm actually for shortening the freshness period, perhaps even to only a day, but I also think that the pressure to create a functioning site needs to be on the reviewers, not the contributors, who are made to gatwick articles because reviewers don't get to them. The reviewers are in the position of control of what gets published, and there should be contingency plans for when reviewers are not around which do not involve deleting valid content. This is even worse in my case, where I do original reporting and have to embarrassingly explain the situation of why there is never going to be a published piece to people I have interviewed. Tduk (talk) 04:37, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

> Can we just start the poll afresh now that more are aware?
I don’t see that a poll was underway. Polls here are meant to inform consensus, not determine it, as in !vote (such as RfCs). Even if a !vote is active, anyone can still change their vote while the discussion remains open.
In my opinion, restarting the discussion now would likely be more disruptive than helpful, however that would work. I don't understand what you intend as a restart.
As others have indicated, I too think the discussion has become circular.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:50, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

My point was that no one can even agree on what the outcome of the discussion was, because it's too sprawling. It may be helpful for everyone to voice their final opinions, with clarity, on a number of issues. Tduk (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

This whole entire thing has exhausted me and and I doubt I will weigh in more on this further than what I already have buried in the absolute goatfuck above this comment. Lofi Gurl (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

If we decied to have a vote, the vote itself still has no final meaning because the discussion is completely insufficient. It can serve as a tool in the discussion process. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

How to measure freshness

From seeing a few thoughts and comments about this, maybe a compromise would be actually shrinking the freshness guideline _for submission for reviewing_, to perhaps 2-3 days, but also putting the pressure then on the reviewers to actually review it in a timely manner. Anything that gets submitted for review after 2-3 days, if it would normally have been published, gets published. This removes the pressure from the contributors, who wrote the article but then are helpless to do anything, and places it on the voluntary reviewers. If published after say, a week, the article may or may not go on the front page, or may simply be archived as a piece of useful work. What do people think of this? Tduk (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I've seen @Metropolitan90 and @Sheminghui.WU and maybe @Lofi Gurl mention things that sort of went in this direction but I couldn't gauge exactly if this is the kind of thing that was meant. Tduk (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if, for this kind of archiving to be meaningful, reviewers should also conduct a full review beyond just freshness? However, only such a rule could easily result in a significant workload. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

They should be doing that anyway, I believe. Whether or not we publish stale material, the fresh material sticks around forever, doesn't it? Tduk (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2025 (UTC)