Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals

Page last updated: Monday 12 at 0310 UTC.      

Refresh   

Archive

---

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

Markup for developing articles and the review process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Markup updates

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

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

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

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

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

Hi @GreekApple123

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

2. Other reviewers work fine without it

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

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

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

6. Scenarios:

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

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

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

{{verify|http://1.org|myquote=i like cookies}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi @Michael.C.Wright

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

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

1a check copyvio vis link

1b check the 5W

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think in future communications we need:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi @Michael.C.Wright

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi @GreekApple123

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project proposal for 2025

width=300px

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

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

• Devise and expand in-line markup tools that facilitate communication between authors and reviewers, such as {{verify}} and {{PhraseReview}}
• Run writing competitions or themed events to encourage more article generation
• Improve how reviewers collaborate and communicate.
• Update the appearance of our Main page and published articles, to include:
  • New version of social bookmarks[11]
  • Include a byline for WN:OR
• Update how we utilize Wikidata (Pharos?)
• Wiki News Flash (voting articles up/down) (Pharos?)
• Update and/or change the review process itself
  • Are flagged revisions the way forward?[12]
• Increase the number of active reviewers
• Add ability to include video in WN:OR

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

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

Should we launch a project to revitalize Wikinews?

Questions and comments

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

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

I really like the idea. Gryllida has talked about doing something similar to an article wizard[13] and has created a similar tool as a bot for IRC, which I have previewed once. It consisted of a series of prompts such as 'find two sources, read them, then summarize them in your own words.'

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Suggest to add point: "Devise and expand in-line markup tools that facilitate communication between authors and reviewers, such as IRC". Some tool to schedule biweekly IRC meetups with logging meeting and taking meeting minutes. Gryllida (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  (I anticipate these can be spent editing articles collaboratively and clearing review queue at each meeting) Gryllida (talk) 03:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• To anyone reading this: do you see a "unsubscribe" button on each of the water coolers linked at Wikinews:Water cooler (I think there are about 5 subpages)? If it's not there, please consider clicking "subscribe"?? And ensuring you either login to the wiki at least once daily, or have the notifications delivered to email which is checked at least daily? (Replace "daily" with some indication of a regular check that is convenient to you). If you can only subscribe to one Water cooler, please subscribe to the "assistance" one. Please let me know how this goes, it would be greatly appreciated. :-) Thanks. Gryllida (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

  I have noticed that the feature Automatically subscribe to topics does not always function properly. On several occasions I have found that I was no longer subscribed to new discussions I started. This happened to me for all three of the discussions I started here: Talk:Ruling party wins election in Bermuda. I have since manually re-subscribed to all three discussions on that page. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• I have started a monthly challenge. The challenge home page can be found here: Wikinews:2025 Boost publication rate/Monthly top article. All published articles during the month are automatically entered. January winners have already been identified. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 18:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Note

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

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

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

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

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

I would add

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

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

Votes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update to archival process

We have had few active admin in recent months. It's been a significant-enough issue that we have chosen to allow Global Sysops to lend a hand (thank you all!). Our archival process is also historically loathed by many admin. We currently have a very long list of un-archived, published articles in the Latest news section of our main page. I would therefore like to propose a change to our archival process.

Proposal: We change our archival process so that reviewers can help admin in the archival process.

Idea: After our post-publication, 24-hour grace period, articles could be protected by a bot to allow only reviewers and admin to edit them.

We create a template such as {{Archive-ready}}, which would allow for a scheduled bot-sweep to archive articles every 24 hours. Once an article has been re-reviewed per the current WN:Archive conventions to include the Pre-protection process, {{Archive-ready}} can be placed on it. In addition, we have a bot that runs every 24 hours looking for articles containing {{Archive-ready}}. When it finds it, it does the final archival step of protecting it to admin-only, removes {{Archive-ready}}, and adds {{Archived}}.

I think we could devise some sort of "meta data" or "front matter" template that allows us to track and manage article stages, original authors, bylines, and more, but very specifically exact publication times for ArchiveBot to parse. That template could have no output to the page, but its parameters can store the meta data. Alternative, maybe we could start including a subpage to every article that contains XML data. I don't know which is cleaner or more elegant. Asked42 and Leaderboard would certainly have a better clue than I. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer)

Should we change our archival process so that reviewers can help admin in the archival process?

Questions and comments

• As I said at Wikinews:Admin_action_alerts#Request_to_archive_articles, I am not convinced of the need for "later, post-archival review" in the first place. Leaderboard (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  Replied there. Gryllida (talk) 09:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  I think it's fine to fully automate as long as there is a tracking category to clear manually after archival. This would solve issues with spam/vandalism to articles which were already published, while still leave human viewing archived articles for unexpected issues. Gryllida (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Regarding the use of XML subpages to store metadata; I just tested and subpages of articles are not moved along with an article move. I'm not sure how or if we can change that behavior. If subpages and root or parent pages aren't moved together automatically, that is not a good solution. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 18:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

  Someone please give me a list of what needs to be archived, and how to do it. I can do it now. Gryllida (talk) 09:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  The list and procedures are both at WN:Archive. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 13:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  Let's write a script that archives sources of published articles automatically? Gryllida (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• We have some conversations about this spread around, so for anyone wanting to follow along:
  • Wikinews:Admin_action_alerts#Request_to_archive_articles
  • Wikinews:Water_cooler/proposals#Update_to_archival_process
  • User_talk:Leaderboard#Archiving

—Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 16:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Audio news

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

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

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

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

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

To the questions put forth;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three-Points-Plan to Jumpstart Wikinews

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

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

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

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

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

Hi

1 ok, please go ahead

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

2 i can publish this straight away no problem

2 list of candidates?

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

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

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

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

Hi @Kenneth Kho

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

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

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

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

article proposal

I'm sorry, I can't write it myself, but I think it's worth noting:

• https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Esperanto_Wikinews

Esperanto-language Wikinews reported for closure? Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 10:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Proposal was rejected Gryllida (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Reviewers self-sighting within 24 hours

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Publicizing reviewership request Darkfrog24

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

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

Can we make a help for making new article

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

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

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

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

Some ideas

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

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

Categories

1. A lot of the categories from Wikipedia probably need to be ported over here. For example, I began the work of creating categories for regions of Asia such as South Asia and East Asia. The amount of work involved is significant, and I'm willing to do some of it, but it might be best to have a structured discussion around how to do it in a desirable manner first.
2. I think there should be some way to link categories together in a way where readers can receive a #News feed for readers of curated content that is particularly relevant to them. So for example, I published my first article under the categories Sports and India; on Wikipedia, I would've put them under w:Category:Sport in India or a subcategory thereof. Wikinews readers should have a way to 'chain together' categories, so that if a reader wants to know specifically about sport in India and not elsewhere, they can do so by maybe using a checkbox interface and selecting both of those individual categories so that only articles published under both categories will show up for the reader.
3. Something like Wikipedia's WikiProjects could be set up to allow editors greater fluidity and specialization in editing articles under various categories. GreekApple123 (talk) 01:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

News feed for readers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Connecting to the past

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

Need for major changes?

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

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

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

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

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

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