Wikinews:Water cooler/policy

Page last updated: Monday at  UTC.

[ Refresh] 

__NEWSECTIONLINK__ Archive

Policies and guidelines and the Style guide contain or link to most of the current en.Wikinews policies and guidelines, however policy is based on the accepted practices of the day on Wikinews, often these might not be written down. This section of the Water cooler focuses on discussions regarding policy issues.

You may wish to check the archives to see if a subject has been raised previously.

Update of license
undefined Some time ago there was a discussion on meta about how to implement the license update to CC BY-SA 4.0 on all wikis. See m:Meta:Babel/Archives/2023-06.

Wikinews use the license CC BY 2.5. So it does not have the SA part and it is an older version.

I would like to ask why Wikinews does not follow WMF and most other wiki projects. Is there a good reason or is it simply because noone thought about updating the license?

Unless there is a good reason I suggest to update the license to follow WMF. --MGA73 (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The goal was that Wikinews would be easy to share. That hasn't really happened, but that's the idea. :/ —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that makes sense because CC BY is less restrictive than CC BY-SA. However with the update of the Terms of Use users agree to license their contributions as CC BY-SA 4.0. So I think that at least all new content should be licensed under that license because I do not think that it is possible just to remove the "SA".
 * If the license do not make it easier to share then I do not think there are any good arguments to keep the less restrictive license for older text. Anyway if someone have allready legally shared the text they can continue to do so even if the license is changed so it should not give any problems to change license for older text too. --MGA73 (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * But, "The only exception [to using CC BY-SA 4.0 or GFDL] is if the Project edition or feature requires a different license. In that case, you agree to license any text you contribute under the particular license prescribed by the Project edition or the feature." I'm struggling to see why we would voluntarily take on that load of work...to make it harder for people to reuse our content, as we want them to. Heavy Water (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Beause the mission of the wiki-family is to make knowledge free for everyone and make sure knowledge stays free. Wikipedia uses CC BY-SA 4.0 and that does not seems to be a problem. Wikipedia have grown and is one of the worlds most used websites.
 * One of the exceptions I know of is wikidata where the data is CC0. Then there is also fair use in some cases but that is not valid for wikimedians to use on own work only for work created by other. I do not know of any other exceptions and reasons.
 * I wonder if there are any known examples where someone said they would no re-use wikinews if the license was BY-SA instead of BY. Anyone have examples? --MGA73 (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Very unlikely, as Wikinews is very obscure. There have been times about 15 years ago when I saw Wikinews reproduced in the wild, but it's not common today, for sure. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * To me that sounds like there is no longer any real problem using BY-SA. Another question not yet discussed is why use 2.5 instead of 4.0. --MGA73 (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I don't see any reason for us to use a different license than the other WMF projects and would support a change. I don't feel strongly enough that I would oppose the status quo, tho. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

So how to move forward? Should there be a formal vote? --MGA73 (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I vote yes to a vote. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you User:Koavf. I'm not very familiar with wikinews so I'm not sure how to do this. But I think I have to go to Polls and add a link to Update license poll and then make a suggestion at that page. Is that correct? If you would like to assist you are very welcome to make the proposal. --MGA73 (talk) 12:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think just posting here would be sufficient, because as you can see, that page hasn't been edited in almost 15 years: https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Polls&action=history —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Koavf, Okay I have prepared the poll below. I will add poll soon but perhaps you could have a look at it first? Is anything missing? --MGA73 (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not from my perspective. Thanks. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikinews should follow the official license in wmf:Policy:Terms_of_Use (currently cc-by-sa-4.0)

 * 1) Weak support It makes sense to be consistent and these terms on CC licenses have really improved and clarified them from v. 2.5 to today. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak support I can see the limitations of ShareAlike, but I think greater interoperability with other wiki projects is more important. As said above, the modern Creative Commons licenses are much better than the pretty ancient version we're currently using. Ash Thawley (talk) (calendar) 05:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikinews should keep the current license (cc-by-2.5)

 * 1) keep the current license - a few of our articles got translated into other languages, and if we would be the only WN project to make the switch, that would kill the translation process. CC licenses are, as far as I know, forward-compatible (a translation of a 2.5 article could be published under 4.0), but not backwards-compatible (a translation of a 4.0 article could not be published under 2.5). (Sidenote: English is usually a source language on WN, but not the other way around because of en.wn's review process and its requirement to check all sources.) As Justin have said, our work had not been reused much lately, but SA would make that even harder. I would be happy to reconsider to transition from CC.BY 2.5 to CC-BY 4.0, if the vote would be simultaneous on all WN projects. - Xbspiro (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And I would advocate for using a separate license for spoken articles. I have raised that issue a while back during a Community Feedback period, but did not attract much attention. - Xbspiro (talk) 12:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * 1) I said above, "I'm struggling to see why we would voluntarily take on that load of work [of migration]...to make it harder for people to reuse our content, as we want them to." Experienced Wikinewsies have repeatedly, over the years, defended the greater freedom offered by not imposing the SA restriction. Xbspiro makes a good point about translation, too. (I really don't care what license non-Wikinews projects use.) I'd welcome a discussion to study the idea of migration to CC BY 4.0. Heavy Water (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with your suggestion of 'studying the idea of migration.' One of things I'd like to better-understand before casting a vote is what can we glean from existing data, in order to understand the scope of any migration. Based on Xbspiro's point above regarding English as a source language, I've tried looking at Wikidata to see if any useful data can be had there. There may be better/existing ways to look at this data and I'm all ears if anyone can provide exmaples. Otherwise, I've started this page: Michael.C.Wright/TranslationAnalysis. Any and all thoughts are welcome. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 18:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) It is obvious that WMF is clueless about Wikinews, they barely have an idea about how Wikipedia functions. Using a more restrictive license, as all SA CC licenses are, makes any usage of Wikinews information more challenging. --Base (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

New option: Wikinews should keep the BY but update to newest version (currently cc-by-4-0)

 * 1) I support an upgrade to 4.0. As I mentioned below using two different licenses for various content; SA for internal tools, scripts, templates, etc and non-SA for article content might be a good compromise that allows us to duplicate Wikipedia tools, scripts, templates, etc. Otherwise, if we are limited to only one, I agree with Heavy Water that the least-restrictive option is the best. We also need to ensure that the other language projects upgrade to a compatible license to allow for translations. The number of English articles that get translated is significant. Previously unsigned comment by Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 20:50, 24 February 2024‎ (UTC)
 * 2)  All versions of BY should be supported and CC evolution should not be frozen in the ancient 2.5. version. Share-Alike (SA) should NOT be implemented as it causes obstacles in spreading information whether the main goal is to spread news maximally with minimum obstacles (just attribution, no extra efforts). --Ssr (talk)
 * 3) (прошу прощения за русский язык) я активный автор в разделе викиновостей на эсперанто. Считаю что переходн на cc-by-4.0 давно необходим. Я считаю не возможным переход на cc-by-sa-4.0 в связи с тем, что все предыдущие материалы викиновостей были опубликованы под лицензией cc-by-2.5, которая НЕ использует «Attribution-ShareAlike». VladimirPF (talk) 06:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) Translating @VladimirPF's  vote: "(sorry for using Russian) I am an active contributor to Wikinews in Esperanto. I think that the transition to cc-by-4.0 has long been necessary. I believe it is not possible to migrate to cc-by-sa-4.0 due to the fact that all previous Wikinews materials were published under the cc-by-2.5 license, which does NOT use Attribution-ShareAlike." @VladimirPF, я перевел ваши сообщения на английский. A.S. Thawley (talk) (calendar) 18:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 5) . A.S. Thawley (talk) (calendar) 03:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 6)  – Of course, we'd be agreeing to either waive or not assert our own moral rights to the extent that the license allows. Nonetheless, a move to CC-BY 4.0 is long overdue, and we can't rescind the current license that we agreed to use in the first place, especially for older content. —George Ho (talk) 10:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments

 * "And I would advocate for using a separate license for spoken articles."
 * Why is this, Xbspiro? And which license? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking. The possibility of voice sampling bothers me a lot - CC licenses simply do not forbid that, but I can't name any licenses which would make me happy in this regard. Call me naïve, because a license will not keep bad actors back, but imagine a court proceeding where the sampler could argue that you have allowed your voice to be used for whatever purposes. Please, feel free to tell me, if you think this is not a valid point - even that would be better than no feedback at all. - Xbspiro (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As long as it is a legal purpose then I think it would be hard to avoid. However the license require that reuser should "indicate if changes were made" so it would be clear that the voice was sampled to say something else. If the license is BY-SA then whatever they use it for should also be license BY-SA (which you think makes reuse harder). --MGA73 (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "if we would be the only WN project to make the switch". (Xbspiro)
 * I have made notes on some of the other WN projects too about license update. I can make a notice on all projects so all projects follow the latest license. --MGA73 (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * All notified. At least those not closed. --MGA73 (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification. We can proceed with a simultaneous transition in all languages for the entire project, ensuring consistency and applying the upgraded license uniformly across all language communities. Kitabc12345 (talk) 10:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Is this a ? The poll system was only used, as far as I know, very early in en.wn's existence. I don't think it is consistent with modern project principles whereby decisions are reached by consensus rather than simple voting &mdash; experienced Wikinewsies' votes are given more weight (or others' aren't counted), because they have knowledge of the project and an accumulated reputation. Separately, I'm concerned about the "Yes" section title; I think it may mislead folks who haven't read the discussion above that precipitated this into thinking the Terms of Use require or at all encourage projects to use CC BY-SA 4.0. I'm not seeing either in the Terms of Use. How about "Yes, Wikinews should follow the typical license for Wikimedia projects, as defined by wmf:Policy:Terms_of_Use (currently cc-by-sa-4.0)"? The "No" section title would also read better with "should" before "keep". Heavy Water (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A vote is one way to find out if there is concensus or not. If 8 says yes and 2 says no then there is concensus. It would be a problem if the votes are 6 against 5 but if 6 prefer to change and 5 does not is it still not better to go with what most users prefer?
 * As for wmf:Policy:Terms_of_Use it says "When you submit text to which you hold the copyright, you agree to license it under: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License ("CC BY-SA 4.0"), ..." How can you read it any other way than CC BY-SA 4.0 is the preferred license?
 * As for the wording "should" I'm not a native English speaker so I do not see how it makes a difference if the word "should" is included or not. But if it is correct to write "Yes, Wikinews should..." and "No, Wikinews should..." then I do not mind.
 * As I understand your comment perhaps there should be one more option like "Update to CC BY 4.0" (not sure how that would fit in Yes/No). Do you have a suggestion? --MGA73 (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I asked on wmf:Policy_talk:Terms_of_Use and it was stated that ToU does not force a project to change license. --MGA73 (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a vote can find out if there's consensus. But, for the example you gave, at en.wn it might vary based on who the users were, even if it was an 8–2 vote.
 * I figured that was what the ToU meant. Heavy Water (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I learnt about this discussion from the Water Cooler on Chinese Wikinews. The Chinese Wikinews community has discussed on the same matter a few months ago. Xbspiro's concern above is also one of the concern raised in our discussion. The Chinese Wikinews community generally supports to update the licence to CC-BY-SA 4.0 on condition that other Wikinews languages also follow as this enables translation and utilisation of contents from other Wikimedia projects. It seems not making much sense if only one or two Wikinews language editions update the licence while the others remain at CC-BY. --Waihorace (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Could somebody explain the benefits of switching 2.5 two 4 except the poor fact, that 4 > 2.5? --A1 (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A1 sadly no. But I can give it a try based on the links in https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License_Versions#License_Versioning_History under "Explanation of changes from prior version".
 * 3.0 fixed some issues related to TPM / encryption and compability with MIT-licenses etc. Not sure how relevant that is for Wikinews.
 * But Internationalization seems more relevant as the new version "utilize the language of the international intellectual property treaties, in place of the language of US copyright law". Also there is a better coverage for Moral Rights.
 * BY-SA is more compatible with other licenses now.
 * 4.0 is said to be even more global.
 * It should also be better to handle "Rights outside the scope of copyright".
 * It implement a "Common-sense attribution" that is better suited to reflect accepted practices (for example using a link) and also a "30-day window to correct license violations". It makes it harder for those that uses a tiny mistake to sue someone for copyright violation.
 * It also claims to have "Increased readability".
 * If anyone have a better reason you are very welcome to share it. --MGA73 (talk) 10:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I reworded the options as suggested and added a new option. I hope it is more clear now. Those that have allready woted are of courese welcome to move the vote if they prefer another option. --MGA73 (talk) 10:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I support this. Updates are necessary because many new projects are now released in version 4.0. However, with Wikinews still on version 2.5, it becomes difficult to publish content from version 4.0 on the older version, causing some inconvenience to the Chinese wikinews community. Kitabc12345 (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Kitabc12345 As I understand it the Chinese Wikinews will change to 4.0 if English Wikinews does. My guess is that other language versions would also be willing to change too. --MGA73 (talk) 09:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Basically, only English, Russian, French, Japanese, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Spanish, Chinese, German, Czech, Dutch, Swedish, Arabic, Serbian, Hebrew, and Esperanto are active communities. We have found that many news media outlets, although they publish under a free license, use the newer CC-BY-4.0 version, while our website operates on the older CC-BY-2.5 version. Consequently, we are unable to replicate their textual content under the newer CC-BY-4.0 license on our older CC-BY-2.5 website. Therefore, I am recommended to upgrade our license to the CC-BY-4.0 version. I agree to support the simultaneous upgrade to CC-BY-4.0 for other language versions, including the Chinese community. Insufficient local technical support personnel often lead us to rely on copying various Wiki templates, including countdown templates, from Wikipedia. We currently lack the knowledge and ability to create these templates independently without duplicating content from Wikipedia. Consequently, we are considering upgrading our license to align with other projects. However, this presents a significant dilemma as we frequently come across content that would be more beneficial to reproduce directly. However, Personally, I strongly support the direct upgrade of WikiNews' license to an independent one CC BY 4.0, not SA. This would preserve its distinct identity as a platform for original news content and prevent its assimilation with Wikipedia. Kitabc12345 (talk) 10:18, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems that only we participate in this vote... What should we do to make this project improve the copyright in this 4.0 agreement, because there is a practical need. Kitabc12345 (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there no consensus? Or is the discussion not active?… Kitabc12345 (talk) 13:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So far only 4 users voted above. 3 thinks we should not upgrade to cc-by-sa-4.0. 1 would probably be willing to upgrade to cc-by-4.0 but it is not clear if the 2 others would accept cc-by-4.0. It would make things more clear if Xbspiro and Base would like to comment on the option to upgrade to cc-by-4.0 (but skip the SA).
 * Some from other language versions would like to make sure that all language versions use the same version so they would only like to upgrade if it is a joined upgrade. Personally I think an upgrade is a good idea but I'm not really active except for trying to clean up files so I have not put a vote. --MGA73 (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I hope everyone will be active in the discussion. Kitabc12345 (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * However, Personally, I strongly support the direct upgrade of WikiNews' license to an independent one CC BY 4.0, not SA. This would preserve its distinct identity as a platform for original news content and prevent its assimilation with Wikipedia.


 * @Kitabc12345, I would like to hear more about this. What do you mean by 'assimilate?'


 * Wikipedia already performs a form of news service. Case in point: 2024 Kansas City Parade Shooting. Because of Wikipedia's editing process i.e., no review process, they can be more nimble and reactive than Wikinews. I'm not saying that is better—it's just the reality. In that way, I see Wikipedia already exceeding the abilities of Wikinews in providing timely and relevant news to readers (accuracy and bias notwithstanding). Based on that, I don't see a reason for Wikipedians to want to assimilate Wikinews. They already replace its news-providing function for their readers.


 * Aside from that, how does Wikinews not implementing a ShareAlike (SA) provision protect it from assimilation by Wikipedia?


 * Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 17:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Suppose we are Wikinews; if the content of Wikinews were the same as Wikipedia's, would it still retain any unique characteristics? Kitabc12345 (talk) 08:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In the Chinese Wikinews community, some new users tend to directly republish articles from Wikipedia, which is inappropriate and leads to a loss of uniqueness for Wikinews. Due to differing copyright licenses, replicating content from Wikipedia on Wikinews is a violation of copyright, and such behavior is immediately prevented. Furthermore, Wikinews is subjected to a review process that typically ensures greater accuracy than Wikipedia. By this, I mean that while Creative Commons Share-Alike (CC-SA) might technically aid Wikinews in copying certain templates from Wikipedia and the like, it's not advisable for Wikinews to repurpose Wikipedia's content. Wikinews is capable of independently developing its own distinctive content over the years, thereby establishing a clear distinction from Wikipedia. If readers cannot obtain information on our Wikinews website that is not written on Wikipedia, then it is almost meaningless and devoid of any news value or relevance to the purpose of the Wikinews project. Kitabc12345 (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Your point is that by incorporating the SA provision, Wikinews would enable content duplication from Wikipedia. And that would eventually lead to Wikinews being assimilated by the larger Wikipedia because it essentially becomes the same content. It's an interesting point and an unintended consequence that warrants concern. There are though a number of key differences between the two platforms that are largely incompatible. For example, WP:AGF vs WN:Never_assume or WP:SYNTH vs WN:SYNTH. I would hope that those subtle and not-so-subtle differences would maintain a unique culture between the two that protects against assimilation.


 * I also think it is important for Wikinews to be able to generate and maintain the backend of the platform, i.e., the tools, scripts, templates, etc. In its current state, I don't see that en.Wikinews has the resources for that. The ability to adapt, remix, and transform those tools from Wikipedia might help with that problem.


 * For me, an important question to answer is: Can we utilize one or even two different licenses in a way that allow us to both discourage article content duplication across the various sister platforms while allowing for simple translations and also facilitating sharing of tools, scripts, templates, etc.? That may be an effective compromise and would allow us to move forward with an upgrade.


 * I posed the same question below (trying to keep track of multiple, similar, discussion threads).


 * Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 15:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

It has always annoyed me that Wikinews is not on the same license as our bigger sibling, Wikipedia. It has, among other things, had the effect of us having to rewrite simple tools, scripts, code for templates, etc. which have already been created on WP. Whenever I have suggested that is just stupid, I've been told, well, that's just the way it's always been. As I am not a lawyer, my question is, what happens to our archives if we change? Is 4.0 in any way less restrictive than 2.5? If yes, it seems to me that the writers of the past would have their rights infringed. If so, do we run a bot and put a notice of CC-BY-2.5 on all articles published before the date we implement the proposed change? (And keep in mind, there are a number of articles which have already been specifically tagged as PD, probably what we would call CC0-1.0 today. --SVTCobra 21:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is any harm in upgrading the agreement. There seems to be no problem between Wikipedia's upgrade from 3.0 to 4.0? All content is automatically upgraded, because we did not switch the copyright license to other restrictions, but only adopted the updated protocol. On the contrary, upgrading to 4.0 for news actually has great benefits because many free projects (other news agency website projects) have adopted the CC B Y4.0 guidelines. We can't copy the content of those free projects, which is quite annoying. Kitabc12345 (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am trying to remember, but was the SA part perhaps the reason Wikinews was different than Wikipedia in the first place? I don't know who set these things up in the way-way-back days. SVTCobra 20:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In the comments above it is mostly the SA that some is against. So I think there is a chance for concensus to update to 4.0 without the SA. But it would be nice if those that woted against the update would clarify if they are against both the SA and the 4.0. --MGA73 (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think after upgrading to version 4.0, everyone will have the opportunity to strive for SA space. We can start by handling it this way first. Kitabc12345 (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with SVTCobra regarding the ability to copy tools, etc from Wikipedia. Wikinews does not have the resources necessary to correct even nit-noid issues such as template loops.


 * My understanding of the difference between SA and non-SA is that reproduced SA content must carry the SA terms forward. A question I have is; can CC-BY-4.0 content be reproduced with credit but fully protected? In other words, is CC-BY-4.0 a possible dead-end route for free material? If so, I would be more in favor of the SA restriction because it preserves free access to the information.


 * Lastly, an aside; I'm not saying this is a waste of time. However, I think our energy would be better used in figuring out how to improve the publication and reviewing process. I'm not sure that the version of copyright license currently in use is impacting that to a great extent (though I am open to being convinced otherwise). A lack of timely, relevant content is the antithesis of the project and what I think will be the eventual death of en.wikinews. The copyright version becomes irrelevant when there isn't material being copied.


 * Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 15:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean fully protected. But it is possible to use CC-BY-4.0 text in another text and have that new text copyrighted so that no one else can use the new text (for example a book). But the original text is still CC-BY-4.0 so it is always possible to go back and use the original text.
 * I agree that it is relevant to get new articles. Someone wrote earlier that some news sites use CC-BY-4.0 and because Wikinews uses an old version that prevent editors from using text from those news sites. So I would not say its a waste to upgrade to a newer version. --MGA73 (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @MGA73 Yes, copyrighted is what I meant by 'fully protected' and you answered my question. Thanks.


 * Regarding the statement 'our work has not been shared much recently,' do we have any stats on that? |line|2-year|~total|monthly Wikimedia Stats can show things such as trends in articles read, but that doesn't indicate content copied or shared.


 * @Heavy Water makes a very good point we shouldn't take on extra work to make it more difficult to share our content. But I don't see that we know that BY-SA has or will hinder sharing (related to my question in this same reply). Do we even have enough committed admins/editors/users to undertake the upgrade project?


 * @Xbspiro makes another good point that it needs to be an all-or-nothing upgrade for various different Wikinews languges if en.wikinews is generally a 'source language' for others. Do we have any stats or data on how much en.wn content is a source for other languages?


 * For me, a vote would hinge on the following:


 * 1. Do we have the manpower needed to proceed with the upgrade?
 * 2. Do we have data on shared content?
 * 3. Can and will the other languages follow suit?


 * As it currently stands, I may have time to volunteer to help with the upgrade, if needed.


 * Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 15:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Coincidentally, today I logged in to find that one of my articles pending review has been translated and published by fr.wikinews. I was pinged regarding the creation of a wikidata item. I checked all of my published articles and found 50% (7 of 14) had wikidata linking to other languages. And that number could be higher if other other editors don't ensure they link to existing wikidata. Maybe wikidata could give us better insight into how much English content is being used among other wikinews platforms. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 15:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Michael.C.Wright. I do not think it will take very long to update the relevant places from CC-BY-2.5 to CC-BY-4.0 or CC-BY-SA-4.0 if you know how to do it. Perhaps 1 hour? If other language versions want to change too then of course that will take some time too. --MGA73 (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Articles from English Wikinews are rarely translated into other languages. In fact, I find it uncommon to see numerous news reports that are sourced from English Wikinews—only a minor portion indeed. I do not agree with the claim that one's own language serves as the origin language. For example, some news reports on English Wikinews come from translations of articles from Russian Wikinews. However, I am in favor of other language editions of Wikinews upgrading to CC BY 4.0, in line with the English Wikinews. Kitabc12345 (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * (see picture) BD-propagande-2 en.jpg (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)]]
 * Do we have someone who knows how to do it? There could be as many as 4,600 articles in en.wikinews that exist as another language. Those licenses will need to align. Do we know how to identify all of those articles, contact someone on that language.wikinews and get the necessary changes made? Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 16:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Michael.C.Wright According to m:Terms_of_use/Creative_Commons_4.0/Legal_note the way the WMF does it is that existing text stay under the old license and all new text is under the new license. So what should be changed is probably just the text you see on the bottom of each page saying:
 * All text created after September 25, 2005 available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License, unless otherwise specified. (Should there be the word "is" in "2005 is available"?)
 * If someone think it would perhaps also be possible to create a page somewhere that users can add their names to agree to relicense old text to the new version.
 * When editing there is a new text saying "Your work will be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License and will be attributed to "Wikinews"." and that should of course also be updated.
 * There can be other places that needs to be updated too but I do not think we have to edit or do anything to all the excisting articles. --MGA73 (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Based on your response here, specifically regarding the upgrade of new content while leaving existing content as-is, I am ready to vote in favor of an upgrade. However, I would like to better understand the ramifications of implementing an SA provision. I have asked two specific questions in two different contexts: 1) Not using SA to protect from assimilation with other projects and 2) Using both SA and non-SA in different aspects of Wikinews content and processes. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 17:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that such behavior is beneficial for Wikinews. Offering the same information as Wikipedia is pointless; it lacks uniqueness and does not differentiate from Wikipedia. Kitabc12345 (talk) 08:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Many free-license news sites do not employ SA (ShareAlike) as their licensing clause. If other media are also required to change to SA to be able to use content from Wikinews, this could strike a blow to the freedom of the press, affecting the dissemination of information and undermining the public good. Kitabc12345 (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

This question is related to User:SVTCobra's above (and I apologize if I'm breaking convention with the threading and question use. I am happy to reformat this entry to conform with norms).
 * It has always annoyed me that Wikinews is not on the same license as our bigger sibling, Wikipedia. It has, among other things, had the effect of us having to rewrite simple tools, scripts, code for templates, etc. which have already been created on WP.

Can we license tools, scripts, and code for templates different from article content? After all, the final, rendered product of a template for example, is not the template, but HTML formatting. Therefore a Wikinews article is not sharing any template. Based on this understanding, would it be an effective compromise to protect Wikinews articles with a less-restrictive CC-BY and internal tools, scripts, and templates with CC-BY-SA, in-line with Wikipedia?

Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 17:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I concur with this viewpoint; this solution is very sound. Kitabc12345 (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Sum up per march 2024
I have tried to sum up the wiews:
 * 2 users (3 if you include me) think Wikinews should follow the same license as the other Wiki-projects (Justin and Ash Thawley).
 * 5 users think that Wikinews should NOT change to BY-SA but stay with BY (Xbspiro, Heavy Water, Michael.C.Wright, Base and Kitabc12345)
 * 1 user is against the update from 2.5 to 4.0 (Base)
 * 4 users possibly 6 (or 7 if you include me) think Wikinews should (perhaps) upgrade to 4.0 (Michael.C.Wright said yes, Xbspiro and Kitabc12345 said yes if all WN update, Heavy Water said yes to study update, Justin and Ash Thawley said yes to 4.0 but also SA)

So does you agree that the result is "Yes, WN upgrade to CC-BY-4.0 if the the other WN also upgrade"?

If that is the result then next step is to find out if the other WN would also change license. That raises 2 questions: --MGA73 (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) How do we find out if WN update - is it a vote on meta or is it a post on every WN?
 * 2) If it is a post on every WN should there be a yes on all WN or is it okay if one or a few smaller WN says no or ignore the post?


 * I think we need someone to conclude on this discussion. Can we agree that the result is WN should upgrade from cc-by-2.5 to cc-by-4.0 but it should be done on all versions of WN?
 * If yes how is it implemented? Do we need a vote on meta? --MGA73 (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Anyone? --MGA73 (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree we should upgrade from 2.5 to 4.0. However, I have no clue how to break the deadlock of inaction. We have a number of things we should be taking action on that we are instead endlessly mulling over.
 * I'm willing to help however I can. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 15:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I can get behind an upgrade to by-4.0. A.S. Thawley (talk) (calendar) 19:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the latest comments. I see two ways. Either a coordinated action or that English Wikinews change and hopefully the other Wikinews follow.
 * I will try once more to write to the other versions and make them aware of the discussion here. --MGA73 (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have now written to all languages linked to d:Q16503. --MGA73 (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As an administrator of Chinese Wikinews, I like that all versions of Wikinews adopt the same licensing with CC-BY-4.0. Kitabc12345 (talk) 10:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I have made a list of pages to change, when Wikinews is ready to update to 4.0. The list is here: Wikinews_talk:Copyright. You are very welcome to add more pages if you find any.

Hopefully the list will make it easier for other languages of Wikinews to update too. --MGA73 (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would like all versions of wikinews to be under the same license. Do we have to do a poll on pl-Wikinews? Will there be one joint (for ol versions of wikinews) voting on meta-wiki? (sorry-automatic translator) Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think each Wikinews have to decide to change. If it is possible to make a vote on meta for all that would be great but I'm not sure it is possible to force all to follow the result.
 * In order to make the change at all or as many WN languages as possible we could set a date for the change that will give everyone time to vote. For example August 1, 2024. --MGA73 (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Do we have an accessible summary of the differences between licenses somewhere? I'm not a lawyer. I think August 1st is not enough time. Maybe January 1, 2025? Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think all Wikinews communities have the capacity to hold votes on their local community pages, as some Wikinews languages are not very active. Kitabc12345 (talk) 10:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There are more info about changes at this link. But I can't claim that it is super easy to understand.
 * I think that 7 months sound like a long time. What needs to be done? If there are 30 days for community to confirm the change and 30 days to find out where to change is that not time enough? I'm not against giving more time I just wonder what is needed? Am I missing something?
 * If a small wiki do not wish to hold a vote then perhaps there are a few active users that can decide? --MGA73 (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You said earlier that August 1, 2024 were not enough time. Did you notice my question about it? --MGA73 (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So far, no one in our water_cooler has commented. I don't know if we can make such a decision. Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I made a new comment on your water cooler. Does anyone know how things are going on other wikinews languages? --MGA73 (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Just to add my 5c here as I got the message on BS Wikinews and I would be up for upgrade of 2.5 to 4.0 licence, while remaining flexible on Share Alike (as I am still not certain what would be desired by whom in my own region/language spectrum). --Zblace (talk) 08:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Zblace Thank you! I think the best way to find out is to reply on your wiki as you just did and then perhaps others will reply too. But if a formal vote is required maybe you could create one? --MGA73 (talk) 09:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Differences between 2.5 and 4.0 according to ChatGpt
and other asked what the differences are. Between cc-by-2.5 and 4.0. Earlier I wrote that:
 * A1 sadly no. But I can give it a try based on the links in https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License_Versions#License_Versioning_History under "Explanation of changes from prior version".
 * 3.0 fixed some issues related to TPM / encryption and compability with MIT-licenses etc. Not sure how relevant that is for Wikinews.
 * But Internationalization seems more relevant as the new version "utilize the language of the international intellectual property treaties, in place of the language of US copyright law". Also there is a better coverage for Moral Rights.
 * BY-SA is more compatible with other licenses now.
 * 4.0 is said to be even more global.
 * It should also be better to handle "Rights outside the scope of copyright".
 * It implement a "Common-sense attribution" that is better suited to reflect accepted practices (for example using a link) and also a "30-day window to correct license violations". It makes it harder for those that uses a tiny mistake to sue someone for copyright violation.
 * It also claims to have "Increased readability".
 * If anyone have a better reason you are very welcome to share it. --MGA73 (talk) 10:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Today I asked ChatGpt if it could explain the differences and is said (format changed by me):

[Start]

Sure! The Creative Commons (CC) licenses have different versions, and each version may have slight variations in the terms and conditions. Here are the main differences between the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 (CC BY 2.5) and Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) licenses:


 * 1. Internationalization and Legal Code Updates
 * CC BY 2.5: The 2.5 license is not as thoroughly internationalized. It was mainly designed with the legal frameworks of a few specific jurisdictions in mind.
 * CC BY 4.0: This version is fully internationalized, meaning it's designed to be universally applicable across different legal systems worldwide. The legal language and terms have been refined to accommodate various legal traditions and interpretations globally.


 * 2. Terminology and Clarity
 * CC BY 2.5: Uses older terminology and might be less clear in some areas compared to newer versions.
 * CC BY 4.0: Introduces more precise language and definitions to reduce ambiguity and increase clarity for international users.


 * 3. Moral Rights and Database Rights
 * CC BY 2.5: The handling of moral rights and database rights is less explicitly addressed.
 * CC BY 4.0: Specifically addresses moral rights (rights of attribution and integrity) and database rights, providing more comprehensive and clear guidelines on how these rights are managed under the license.


 * 4. Additional Terms and License Interpretation
 * CC BY 2.5: Includes fewer provisions related to additional terms.
 * CC BY 4.0: Allows licensors to add specific terms and conditions as long as they don't contradict the license. It also includes more guidance on the interpretation and enforcement of the license.


 * 5. Attribution Requirements
 * CC BY 2.5: Attribution requirements are somewhat less detailed.
 * CC BY 4.0: Provides more detailed requirements for attribution, making it clearer what users need to do to properly attribute the original creator.


 * 6. Adaptation and ShareAlike Compatibility
 * CC BY 2.5: Adaptation terms are present but less developed.
 * CC BY 4.0: Has clearer terms on what constitutes an adaptation and how adaptations should be handled, ensuring better compatibility with other licenses, including more detailed terms on share alike and compatibility with other licenses.


 * 7. Technical Protection Measures (TPM)
 * CC BY 2.5: The stance on technical protection measures (such as DRM) is less detailed.
 * CC BY 4.0: Clearly prohibits the application of TPMs to licensed works in a way that restricts others from exercising the licensed rights.


 * 8. General Provisions and Warranties
 * CC BY 2.5: Contains fewer general provisions.
 * CC BY 4.0: Includes updated general provisions and disclaimers, such as a more detailed disclaimer of warranties and liability, which offers better legal protection to licensors.

In summary, CC BY 4.0 is more detailed, clearer, and better adapted to international use than CC BY 2.5. It also includes improved provisions for handling moral and database rights, attribution requirements, and additional terms, making it a more robust and versatile licensing option.

[End]

I hope this will make it easier if/when other language versions discuss the change of license. --MGA73 (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * (прошу прощения за русский язык) Тема перехода на новую лицензию очень важно. И глупо обсуждать различия между лицензиями, опираясь на советы ChatGpt. Я настоятельно рекомендую обратиться в Фонд для получения чёткого ответа на вопрос: в чём различия между CC BY 2.5 и CC BY 4.0. В конце концов, именно Фонд несёт юридическую ответственность за реализацию условий различных лицензий в наших проектах. ps: лично я поддерживаю переход на CC BY 4.0. Отимени викиноновтей на языке эсперанто могу сказать, что с нашей точки зрения переход на новую лицензию нужен: мы используем ряд материалов и источников, которые распространяются по лицензии CC BY 4.0. VladimirPF (talk) 06:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Translating @VladimirPF's comment: "(I apologise for using Russian) The topic of transition to a new license is very important. And it is stupid to discuss the differences between licenses based on the advice of ChatGPT. I strongly recommend contacting the Foundation to get a clear answer to the question of what the differences are between CC BY-2.5 and CC BY-4.0. In the end, it is the Foundation that is legally responsible for implementing the terms of various licenses in our projects.
 * PS: I personally support the transition to CC BY- 4.0. In addition to Wikinews in Esperanto, I can say that from our point of view, the transition to a new license is necessary: ​​we use a number of materials and sources that are distributed under the CC BY-4.0 license." A.S. Thawley (talk) (calendar) 18:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * GPT chat can't help us here. This is too delicate a matter. Wikipedia is on version 4.0, so a change will probably be necessary sooner or later. But our community is small. No one has commented on pl.Wikinews yet. Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Conclusion and implementation of upgrade to cc-by-4.0
I see support to upgrade to cc-by-4.0 but perhaps an administrator or a bureaucrat should formally close the vote and set a date for the upgrade. I suggested August 1, 2024 but someone from another language suggested that it was a bit too soon. So it could also be September 1, 2024 for example.

I also think it would be helpful to cummunicate the date to the other language versions that English Wikinews will change the license on. It will make it easier for each wiki to coordinate.

I have created User:MGA73/Licenseupgrade with a list of all wikis. It is not complete yet but I hope it can make it easier for all languages to upgrade. Everyone are welcome to help update and expand. And I can also move it outside my name space if thats better. --MGA73 (talk) 12:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I got a reply on meta that what needs to be changed is a configuration change in https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/source/mediawiki-config/browse/master/wmf-config/InitialiseSettings.php$10828 and an edit to MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning. So now we have all info on what to change. --MGA73 (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added both to our master list here: Wikinews_talk:Copyright.
 * I am unsure who should edit the phabricator page. Do we request that once we're ready or is it our responsibility to maintain that page? —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 13:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Michael.C.Wright We make a request in https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/ and ask them to fix. We just link to this discussion. --MGA73 (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I still think it would be best if an admin make a formal conclusion with a date. Anyone? --MGA73 (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. To help; August 1 was floated above and is now only a few weeks away but easily doable. We've done a lot of the work upfront by identifying pages that need updated and prepping many for easier update. That list as well as instructions can be found here: Wikinews_talk:Copyright.


 * Any admin who finalizes a date and closes this discussion, could do us a huge solid and go through the list and update any of the remaining, protected pages using the instructions at the link above. Many thanks @MGA73 for your help and perseverance and also many thanks to any admin who helps! —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 16:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Review and Admin fast track, to reinvigorate English Wikinews
We have now implemented pre-review on 25-30 articles as trial. Feedback on how this is going should proceed in the feedback request. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Me Da Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 14:39, 19 June 2024‎ (UTC)

There was discussion about the review process being broken, over at Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions. The suggestion was made to split the conversation off elsewhere, and I see no evidence that this was done, so I'm doing it.

When I was a high schooler, I had first period off one year. I would kill time in the library, and so I asked for sysops privileges. I received them, almost instantly. The thinking at the time was that being an admin was no big deal. If you were wrong in your judgements, another sysops could revert you, and if needed, your special status could always be revoked.

I became an early contributor to Wikinews, with my first article dated to November 16, 2004, just eight days after the project's launch. For years, things would be published almost instantly after they were submitted, unless they had substantial issues. But increasingly things I'd submit would get lost in a jumble, and marked stale. This included original reporting, enough so that I substantially left the project.

I feel Wikinews needs to add five admins and five reviewers, minimum, in the hopes that one remains active over the medium term. If the people chosen end up making bad calls, that's the learning process. If they end up making really bad calls, okay, we remove the status. This is a wiki, everything is revertable. But more than likely, the people given these extra responsibilities will be a-okay.

Thoughts? -- Zanimum (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I have to agree. There's a major personnel shortage here, and it's not going to get better with the current system. Handing out admin and reviewer like the titles are irreversible and made of solid gold isn't going to do anything to improve the mess this place has found itself in. Anyone able to help out should be vetted, sure, but then they should be allowed to help. The situation as-is is entirely unsustainable, as the last few months have proven. A.S. Thawley (talk) (calendar) 09:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Tagging in, , , , , , who all commented on the previous thread. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree. This wiki has become silly. A bunch of rules with no one left for the rules to be enforced against. Somewhere along the way we've lost the path. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * 'Too few reviewers' has been a complaint for years. 2022,2020 This is the chronic problem I referred to recently.


 * I propose the following scheme:


 * No immediate approval for elevated privileges
 * A new pre-review template that has three possible statuses: In progress (default),  Recommend publish, or  Not ready. The only parameters for this template can be 1, 2, or 3
 * Anyone can perform pre-review by starting a new section in the article's collaboration page titled "Pre-review" followed by pre-review
 * Articles that have the status Recommend publish can be more-quickly reviewed by an existing reviewer
 * Reviewers will learn which pre-reviewers leave good notes for them and demonstrate the ability to improve articles prior to publication.
 * Articles that have the status Not ready will have the review template changed by the pre-reviewer to develop for changes to be made (saving reviewers time)
 * Authors are thus incentivized to do more of their own copy editing if their articles contain obvious and easy-to-fix errors that cause them to fail pre-review.
 * Pre-reviewers are required to use the tasks template as well as clear notes in the collaboration page.
 * Links to policy with explanations indicate a proficient pre-reviewer.
 * Links to previous precedent and examples indicate a proficient pre-reviewer.
 * This also informs new authors/users of our policies.


 * Existing reviewers and admins can at any time initiate a vote for elevated privileges for a pre-reviewer based on their demonstrated ability to pre-review. The voting process has a defined time-limit, after which only a simple majority out of ≥ 3 admin and/or reviewers is needed to grant elevated privileges.


 * Any reviewer or admin can at any time initiate a vote of "no confidence" in the scheme itself. That process too has a defined time-limit, after which only a simple majority out of ≥ 3 admin and/or reviewers is needed to end the scheme.


 * Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 16:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I do not entirely disagree with everything I'm reading here. The 'pre-review' idea might have a pinch of merit. But:once again, we find ourselves quacking about over things that matter little, while spending minimal time on things that REALLY matter, namely: Getting the news, submitting the news, editing the news and publishing the news. That is what we are supposed to be about at this place. Let's try not to move too speedily on this just yet. We need a period of contemplation on this -- but I like the discussion on-the-whole. So, quite seriously: Who wants to become a Reviewer in the near future?--Bddpaux (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I would volunteer to help. There needs to be some sort of plan or system in place to help on-board people and make the process as smooth and effective as possible. A scheme like the one I've proposed could serve dual purposes: assisting current reviewers in evaluating aspiring reviewers and offering aspiring reviewers an opportunity to immerse themselves in the intricacies of the role. In a way saying to new reviewers; if you want it, this is what it takes. Are you still interested? I think the review process is completely different from writing a good article. Though it requires that ability as a foundation.


 * I guess I'm trying to err on the side of fewer reviewers to prevent too many who just want the title and a new userbox. I also see little value in retreading discussions that have been had for years. A news provider needs to be both nimble and thoughtful, intentional, and deliberate. -- Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 13:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As stated in my review request, I'd be happy to help out. I'm just coming out of my health slump so I should be around more soon. I'm starting on en-wiki with small edits to get my footing again and build up a bit. I'm going to reapproach AILSHA to ask some questions about some of the more recent things she's been doing since Eurovision. A.S. Thawley (talk) (calendar) 16:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I would totally support this, however I think there should be some requirements for pre-review, if for nothing other than preventing vandalism, nonsense, and people with absolutely no idea what they are doing. Maybe something like:
 * 1.5 published articles. This would be so that they have at last some idea of what passes a review, and some idea of our policies on how to write articles.
 * 2.Autoconfirmed. To prevent vandalism, and users who don't know anything about Wikinews. In reality most people meeting the first requirement would meet the second.
 * I think maybe would could have it so that these people could review pending changes as well. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have created the template Pre-review based on my comments above. I am interested in feedback about the template itself as well as any thoughts on its effectiveness in getting good, early evaluations of content. It is ready to be carefully used now. I think using it would be a good way for any aspiring reviewer to get a feel for the basics of reviewing (the basics = reviewing against the pillars).


 * I've used it once on an article and I think I will change the pass/fail verbiage to something else. The goal being not to discourage or offend authors, but to provide legitimate, understandable, and actionable feed-back with an ultimate goal of getting more quality articles published.


 * If there is feedback strictly based on the template—such as format, layout, etc—that feedback is best placed on the template talk page so we don't lose the focus here.


 * Current reviewers; if you went to review an article that already had a pre-review on it and the pre-review was done by someone you trusted, with a track record of good articles and good work with other authors, would that help you? --Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 13:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have made a proposal for a pre-reviewing page Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Given that @Bddpaux has left for 6 months it seems (and Asheiou for a week), we will need all the reviewer time we can get. I think pre-reviews are a great way to so. I would like to ping people who are, under the proposal, eligible for pre-review, and ask that they consider it.
 * Users eligible (I am pinging Michael.C.Wright because they would have been eligible when they started doing it) . Thank you.
 * P.S. Let me know if I missed anyone. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Idea:Make it such that the review category is sorted by assessed ready at the top, non-pre reviewed in the middle, and assessed not ready at the bottom@Michael.C.Wright Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I made a first-pass attempt at this but it isn't working yet. It's tricky because the pre-review is applied to the talk page. But the article is what is in the category 'Review' and thus gets listed in the review queue. I do like the idea and would like to see if it can be done. But I'm also trying to ensure the pre-review is least-impacting right now, as it's not an officially approved process. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 18:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to apply pre-review to the main page? It so far has silent consensus, but if anyone complains we can always undo it.@Michael.C.Wright Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Me Da Wikipedian: What exactly do you mean? And also, hell no (I hope it's not what I think it is, but I can't think of any alternative interpretations). There isn't even a consensus for pre-review to be implemented (silent consensus is an absurd idea, particularly for a small wiki like en.wn, and actually means there is no consensus). I thought the one done for the article about Putin allegedly being open to ceasefire talks was just a beta version intended to get feedback, so I didn't object. Now there's been another, and it is apparently being treated like it's a feature of policy, even though it still is only acknowledged by a proposed policy.
 * Speaking of which, I have questions about the pre-review process, and especially about that proposed policy. I see two different people basically presenting two radically different ideas of what this would be.
 * Michael.C.Wright, from what I can gather from the pre-reviews you've done and your April 22 comment above, your framework involves pre-reviewers recommending actions to reporters and reviewers. You asked whether those recommendations, from someone reviewers trust, would help reviewers. Just speaking for myself obviously, though I hope other reviewers would feel the same, I would only trust them to point out issues, not to ensure an article, or a facet of it (e.g. neutrality) is pass-worthy. Unless they're trusted enought to be reviewers, and I wouldn't want to rely solely on my own judgement of that. The consensus resulting from an FR/RFP has the benefit of showing us the entire community's opinion of that. If they are just being trusted to point out issues, I don't understand why this needs to be a formal thing with the complications of such, because non-reviewers have been doing a similar sort of thing for years (you among them).
 * Me Da Wikipedian, pre-review as I gather you envision it also sounds redundant...to, um, review. According to the proposed policy, we would be giving full reviewer rights &mdash; plus autosight, which tells me you probably don't understand how the current system works &mdash; to people with possibly very little experience here. Am I wrong about how your proposal is supposed to work? Again, why wouldn't these people just run for reviewer, then? Heavy Water (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Heavy Water, what I mean by "silent consensus" is that a few users want it and no one has said they don't, so until then it is reasonable to think there are no complaints. And yes, unless and until someone has an issue its being treated as such, it's reasonable to think that...no one has any issue with it being used. Obviously, the point of pre-review would not be to be the same as review. It would exist to allow a more open discussion between the pre-reviewer and the author, someone who can fix the issues with being worried about being too involved in writing the article, training for potential reviewers, helping to prioritize the work of actual reviewers, and helping with more minor stuff like rollback and pending changes. Their judgement has no effect at all on whether or not an article is published. The main thing they can't do is the really hard part about reviewers jobs, you know being solely responsible to make sure something is of quality and if so publish it to the main page. At least how I meant the autosight was similar to the pending changes right on enwiki, to allow them to review pending changes, not new articles. Again, at least with my requirements, these people would have a reasonable amount of experience. People wouldn't just run for reviewer...because well the level of trust and confidence needed for someone to give a recommendation and help a new user out is much different than the power to publish something to the main page.
 * I completely concur with @Michael.C.Wright's comment below as well. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I thought the one done for the article about Putin allegedly being open to ceasefire talks was just a beta version intended to get feedback...
 * Correct

Now there's been another, and it is apparently being treated like it's a feature of policy, even though it still is only acknowledged by a proposed policy.
 * The template is not intended as a policy feature. The disclaimer at the end clarifies: "This is a pre-review only and is not part of the official review process." If it evolves into a policy, that's fine, but its purpose is to provide a consistent, predictable format for evaluations by another user.

from what I can gather from the pre-reviews you've done and your April 22 comment above, your framework involves pre-reviewers recommending actions to reporters and reviewers.
 * Correct

I would only trust them to point out issues, not to ensure an article, or a facet of it (e.g. neutrality) is pass-worthy.
 * Correct

Unless they're trusted enought to be reviewers, and I wouldn't want to rely solely on my own judgement of that. The consensus resulting from an FR/RFP has the benefit of showing us the entire community's opinion of that.
 * I made the template in the context of my comment above, in which I proposed a process for grooming and identifying potential reviewers. In this process, any user can evaluate an un-reviewed article and provide feedback, ranging from a simple second opinion to an in-depth evaluation that helps get an article published. To reiterate what I said above, "Reviewers will learn which pre-reviewers leave good notes for them and demonstrate the ability to improve articles prior to publication." In this way, a good pre-reviewer (this is just a name to discuss them, not meant to be a unique group, with status, etc.) can be identified by reviewers as someone who could be nominated or supported as a potential reviewer.

If they are just being trusted to point out issues, I don't understand why this needs to be a formal thing with the complications of such, because non-reviewers have been doing a similar sort of thing for years (you among them).
 * One of the benefits I see in the easyPeerReview gadget is that it forces a reviewer to at least acknowledge the pillars one-by-one, implying each was checked by the reviewer as part of a (hopefully) structured, rigorous, thorough review. I think the template Pre-review could do the same for potential reviewers. I don't expect it to train people on how to review, nor do I expect it to signal a potentially good reviewer. But over time, a bunch of pre-reviews by someone could do both.


 * As Bawolff intimated at Water cooler/Miscellaneous, we need to change the way en.wn is perceived. By my count, one could potentially argue we meet three of the proposed criteria to shutter a project:


 * 1) Lack of impact on other Wikimedia projects and wider Internet infrastructure
 * 2) Severe lack of community activity
 * 3) Strong external project to merge with (Wikipedia)


 * We need more reviewers. My goal with this template is to help groom and identify those individuals more quickly and easily. Sorry for the long post. I'm trying to make things more clear. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 23:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Feedback on Pre-Review process
undefined We have now had at least 17 pre-reviews on at least 15 articles and counting over the past 2 weeks or so, including at least 8 done by me. As such, I think we have a basic idea of how this process is working. How is it? Authors who have recieved a pre-review (,, myself, , , and ), is it helpful? Pre-reviewers (, myself, and hopefully Asheiou at some point), how is it for you? Reviewers who have reviewed after a pre-review (Asheiou,, @Heavy Water, and ), was the pre-review helpful to you? Generally, is this process helpful and should it continue?

If you support the continuation of the pre-review process, do you support any changes to the pre-review proposal policy or is it good to go? Should we decide to adopt it, how should we enforce the requirements and how should we grant the permission? Will users be allowed to decide to opt out of pre-review?

Please share any and all feedback about the process. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I think the only requirement for pre-review should be auto-confirmation. If the point of a pre-review is to have it open to more people, just creating a tiered pre-reviewer permission is counterintuitive, especially if a permission would have to be applied for. A.S. Thawley (talk) (calendar) 22:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "I think the only requirement for pre-review should be auto-confirmation" - The idea, at least my idea, of pre-review is that people with some idea of what they are doing can help out new users. A user can be autoconfirmed from doing something totally unrelated to writing an article and will likely have no idea what they are talking about. The other requirements were made so that someone at least has a basic understanding of policy, has had articles actually pass review before (you can't review someone elses work on something if you can't do the work yourself), and there recommendations will do more good than harm. The idea of application is just because I think it would be annoying to try to get it granted automatically, but the proposal states that it should be granted to anyone meeting the requirements except in rare cases. @Asheiou Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My idea of the pre-review "role" was less of a formalized role and more of semi-formalized process anyone could follow, even if they do a poor job of it (at least the first time or two). The goal is to create a pipeline for new reviewers. I think we need as little friction as possible in creating new reviewers without compromising the quality of reviewers.
 * Having said that, I'm not against a formalized role. I would like to see how consensus develops around it. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 17:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. I do think that a bad pre-review can be confusing thought as many people will find up following the incorrect recommendation. As well, at least for myself, by first 10 or so edits were adding punctuation (to a now deleted article). Would you have really thought I would do anything but give useless/harmful recommendations at that point? 5 articles and you’ll at least know enough to be helpful. Activity is avoid pre-reviewers who don’t respond in a reasonable timeframe and given how pre-review is pretty new and changing so they will keep up. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has been very helpful to me, as a new contributor. Lejar (talk) 10:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Thanks for the feedback. For me that is a primary mark of success; assisting new contributors understand how things work here, especially given our approach of limited documentation and policies and higher dependence on institutional knowledge. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 17:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with . Honestly, despite all the debate over details of the proposed policy, so far this has been implemented and the people getting pre-reviews, the pre-reviewers, and the reviewers all find it helpful. That is point, lets remember that. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you Me Da Wikipedian, for starting this conversation. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 17:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

NOTE:Asheiou was granted preview status when they should not have been by and made 1 review before the status was removed. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I can say that in the one review I did, I found the issues highlighted by the pre-review useful for informing my review outcome. I agree with @Heavy Water that pre-review just by its nature can never be used to assure the publishability of a piece, but it can be used to point out things to work on.
 * My continued hesitancy with pre-review is that all the time spent pre-reviewing could be spent fixing the article to a standard where it can be published. A.S. Thawley (talk) (calendar) 22:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "pre-review just by its nature can never be used to assure the publishability of a piece" - which is why the pre is there. "all the time spent pre-reviewing could be spent fixing the article to a standard where it can be published" - this actually brings up some other interesting questions. Can you pre-review your own article. Also, is can pre-reviewers pre-review an article they fixed up heavily, like I have done at IDF missile strikes UN school and Last civilian hospital closes in Darfur, Sudan? @Asheiou Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone can effectively review their own work, that's why we do peer-review.
 * Pre-reviewing something you did lots of work on should be okay, because it's a *pre*-review. An uninvolved editor will still go through and work out any issues a pre-reviewer may have inadvertently introduced. A.S. Thawley (talk) (calendar) 22:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "I don't think anyone can effectively review their own work" and "Pre-reviewing something you did lots of work on should be okay," are sort of contradictory, as if you did a lot of work on it you are kind of reviewing (partially) your own work.@Asheiou Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * [A]ll the time spent pre-reviewing could be spent fixing the article I agree with the general principle. However, a reviewer is limited to how involved they can be in producing an article. There are bright lines such as adding sources that disqualify a reviewer. I think pre-reviews are most valuable when they are done in the context of an actual review. Therefore any recommendation to not publish should mirror why the same article would otherwise fail review, such as WN:Source problems, extensive copyright problems, etc.
 * A.S. Thawley, you raised that point before and after reading and agreeing with it, I updated the template's documentation by recommending pre-reviewers first "Perform any desired edits to the article to help improve it..." The ultimate goal of a pre-review is to get articles published easily and quickly and therefore correcting as many problems as possible before review is helpful. Maybe I should update the proposed policy (that could also just become a guideline) to reflect that, because it is a very good point. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 17:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ”I should update the proposed policy” - Please don’t until we can reach a consensus, just so that we have a thing that exists (and stays the same) that we can propose changes to and then make only changes we agree on. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I also meant to add that pre-reviewing one's own work goes against the spirit of peer review, in my opinion. Authors often read their own words as they intended, not as others might interpret them. An uninvolved reviewer is more likely to spot errors. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 17:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "all the time spent pre-reviewing could be spent fixing the article to a standard where it can be published" - by this logic, provided there is another reviewer who could review, reviewers shouldn't give not ready reviews, just fix it. And yet they do.@Asheiou Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There's no guarantee that another reviewer will actually be available or willing to review something. Not ready reviews given out by actual reviewers are essential to ensure that reviewers don't lock themselves out of reviewing. The difference with pre-review is that a pre-reviewer has no ability to actually publish a piece, so their ready assessment isn't binding. The roles are different. A.S. Thawley (talk) (calendar) 23:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "There's no guarantee that another reviewer will actually be available or willing to review something" - there are certain times you can be reasonably certain. Again, I think that whether or not pre-reviewers can lock themselves out of pre-reviewing does make a difference here and a large one. The other value of a not ready review is if the pre-reviewer doesn't have the time, interest, expertise, to fix it. As well, some choices can be up to the author (problem X can be solved by Y or Z). Furthermore, a not ready review allows the pre-reviewer to give recommendations to the author and reviewer, allowing the reviewer to check if the issue was fixed quickly rather than needing to find it. As well, part of pre-review is to help users gain experience with reviewing, and for reviewers to know how well a job they did. @Asheiou Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. The pre-review process benefits everyone: reviewers, reporters, and potential reviewers. For example, it helps identify uncertain issues. By using pre-review, questions can be raised, and observing how reviewers address them provides valuable feedback. This helps reporters avoid future issues and allows reviewers to understand pre-reviewers' capabilities. Ideally, the original author can address potential issues before review, making the reviewer's job easier and faster and hopefully lead to more published articles. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 17:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I was persuaded by Michael.C.Wright's comment above that this could be a good thing. I looked to poke holes in it and it seems like a solid proposal, mostly. But I would prefer pre-reviewers to need to be a MediaWiki user group with formal approval, on further thought. That's the only way I can see to guard against situations where people completely ignorant of what they're talking about, even if well-meaning, give schlocky pre-reviews, reporters don't know that the advice is inaccurate or incomplete, and experienced users have to go in and explain what the pre-reviewer got wrong. Whereas if pre-reviewers are required to have at least some experience, they're less likely to give poor advice and cause further trouble, and if they do that &mdash; which they probably would, sometimes &mdash; there's a lot less they need to be corrected on. I think they shouldn't be able to pre-review articles they'd worked on significantly (judged by the same standards as for reviewers), for the reasons stated above of leaving choices up to the reporter and of the benefit of peer review, and also because reporters, to the extent possible, should learn by doing of having to fix problems with their articles. Heavy Water (talk) 06:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * " I would prefer pre-reviewers to need to be a MediaWiki user group with formal approval" I think that would be a bit difficult (anyone, please contradict me if I'm wrong) to get for 1 relatively inactive site. "the only way I can see to guard against situations where people completely ignorant of what they're talking about, even if well-meaning, give schlocky pre-reviews" - I think my idea of 5 articles including 1 in the last month and autoconfirmation, as well as a small bit of admin discretion (or however would give this should we make it more formalized).
 * I completely agree with you. I would say that it is optimal to have a formalized group, however it would not be by community consensus (as those are so hard to get around here), just the granting admin. Here is something else. So far, both of our pre-reviewers have made minimal errors, none of which caused too much damage. Allowing any autoconfirmed user to pre-review (which would through a bit of estimation be around 140,000 users or so) would result in the vast majority of pre-reviewers having no idea what they are doing. No pre-review would be better than this.@Heavy Water@Asheiou Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

After 1 week
After 1 week, here's what we have agreed on: Here's what we have a disagreement on:
 * 1) Unanimous consensus that a pre-review process should exist in some form
 * 2) Unanimous consensus that pre-reviewers should be able give a recommend publish review
 * 3) Unanimous consensus that pre-reviewers may not pre-review they're own articles.
 * 4) Unanimous consensus that pre-reviewers must be auto-confirmed or confirmed
 * 1) Can Pre-Reviewers give out Not-Ready pre-reviews?
 * 2) Can Pre-Reviewers pre-review an article they have worked heavily on?
 * 3) Should there be other requirements for pre-reviewer (other than confirmed/autoconfirmed) and if so what should they be?
 * 4) Should Pre-Reviewer be a formalized group?

From this point forwards, pre-reviewers should follow the 4 statements above that we have agreed to. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @User:Heavy Water said But I would prefer pre-reviewers to need to be a MediaWiki user group with formal approval, on further thought. How do we make that group—who would we task to do so, an admin? If we are making a new group of pre-reviewers, should we attach 'patroller' privileges to that new group? See also: Water_cooler/policy/archives/2024/April Patrolling new pages seems like a good fit for "pre-reviewers." Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 14:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Below are my responses to the open items listed above:


 * Can Pre-Reviewers give out Not-Ready pre-reviews?
 * I think a pre-reviewer's ability to recommend in both directions (publish/not ready) is vital.
 * Can Pre-Reviewers pre-review an article they have worked heavily on?
 * I think a pre-reviewer, as a peer reviewer, must maintain distance just as a reviewer must.
 * Should there be other requirements for pre-reviewer (other than confirmed/autoconfirmed) and if so what should they be?
 * We should make it very easy to give (and remove) pre-reviewer privileges. Otherwise we ultimately make it harder to give reviewer privileges. Therefore, in my opinion, fewer requirements are likely better than more.
 * Should Pre-Reviewer be a formalized group?
 * I feel like it adds a hurdle to require a collective decision to allow one to pre-review an article. But I see the potential damage a poor review can do. I (grudgingly) agree a formalized group would mitigate that risk.
 * Should all pre-reviews stop now that we are converging on consensus in favor of a formalized group?
 * Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 14:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Should all pre-reviews stop now that we are converging on consensus in favor of a formalized group" - No. A few reasons:
 * 1.Further pre-reviews are still providing benefit
 * 2.More pre-reviews means more of a "sample" to know how well pre-review works
 * 3.I believe that no one has suggested guidelines/requirements that any current pre-reviewer does not meet
 * Patroller actually seems like a great idea to add to the "pre-review package". I agree that fewer requirements is better. I'll explain why I think the 3 I gave are needed though.
 * Autoconfirmed:To allow them to be able to move the page, which sometimes does need to be done. Not a huge detail...but considered other requirements they'll probably have it anyways
 * 5 articles:So that they will actually have knowledge about WikiNews. You can teach what you don't know yourself.
 * 1 article in the past month:So that we only get people who are semi-active as pre-reviewers. Also to avoid someone who hasn't been here in 10 years getting pre-review and also probably not knowing what they're doing. And, of course, there are some people who could have gotten 5 articles even before peer-review was made. Keep in mind that we do have "rare cases" in there, and our admins can use common sense.
 * Here is actually another question:When review permissions are removed through PEP, are they automatically a pre-reviewer? Is there PEP for pre-reviewers?
 * @Michael.C.Wright Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cromium as you have conducted the vast majority of reviews after a pre-review, do you have an opinion? Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Making Neutrality an official policy
We already treat it as a policy the vast majority of the time, and I doubt anyone seriously disagrees with it. Should we make it official policy at this point? Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * There's already Neutral point of view as a policy. I can't help wonder whether NPOV and neutrality are interchangeable nowadays. Anyways, no point on promoting "Neutrality" from essay to guideline... or policy at this time. George Ho (talk) 08:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But (as is pretty obvious), Neutrality contains different information that NPOV. Perhaps they could be merged into one policy as well...but I think the point would be because it contains useful information not in NPOV, generally already treated as though it was a policy, and also WN:Neutrality is actually more of specific things you should do, while WN:NPOV is the general idea (be neutral). @George Ho Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm.... I dunno. If the community here is very small, then why make Neutrality a rule? George Ho (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how that is in any way related. So your saying we should make it a rule because this wiki is small? Don't understand why that supports your arguement. @George Ho Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Lemme put this another way: I don't see a point of promoting Neutrality as a guideline or policy, and there's been a lotta effort done to make Neutrality an essay, unless, of course, to be consistent (or aligned?) with other Wikimedia projects using NPOV as a rule. Furthermore, I don't know whether Neutrality helps much other than to limit any more articles or publications. I'd be too hesitant to support another rule at the project's current state as-is. George Ho (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Or, as I must say, I don't see the project's community expanding or growing anytime soon, and creating another rule may either worsen or not much benefit the project. George Ho (talk) 11:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So you think creating a rule to make articles more neutral will harm the project. Quality over quantity. @George Ho Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not exactly what I mean. I appreciate your mission to make the articles more neutral, but let's be very, very cautious about this. When WN:Newsworthiness was promoted from essay to guideline six years ago, I wasn't very pleased, honestly. Nonetheless, the late Pi Zero warned about instruction creep before promoting it.
 * Well, I'll say no more about this for now. Let's await others' opinions about this. If no one else besides you challenges my views, then we can assume "no consensus" to make the essay a policy or guideline. George Ho (talk) 11:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the fact that we need to be neutral and actually publish news on a news website does limit us. But would you seriously rather a site without a restriction that we need to actually publish only what is news?
 * Institution creep (as defined in the page you linked), is to the point where "instructions increase in size over time until they are unmanageable". It is very managble to only keep to actual news (which there is much more of than we write per day) and also managable (and necessary) to be neutral. @George Ho Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Any published articles that weren't and/or still aren't "neutral" yet as claimed? --George Ho (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not that I can think of off the top of my head (but I probably could find some issues if I went through our archives). But, this is not the point. In fact, it demonstrates mine, that it is managable to be neutral. Also, as previously said, we more or less already follow WN:Neutrality. @George Ho Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with George Ho that we should work to avoid things that may discourage new folks joining us. And to that point, articles going stale in the review queue is a major discouragement to new and even long-time users.


 * Any published articles that weren't and/or still aren't "neutral" yet as claimed? Yes, there are still issues here: Talk:Islamic_State_Khorasan_Province_claims_responsibility_for_attack_at_Crocus_City_Hall,_Krasnogorsk.


 * But in that case, I think developing a corrections and retractions policy or improving the existing guideline would be a better use of our time rather than a neutrality policy. But again, I think getting more reviewers should be our sole focus right now. A news organization that can't publish news articles ceases to be a news organization. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 14:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Michael.C.Wright, I think both you and @George Ho are acting like publishing articles and having more reviewers and having a neutrality policy are mutually exclusive. Here something that shouldn't be news: There not. In fact, for the most part we already follow WN:Neutrality.
 * Articles don't go stale because we formalize a part of our neutrality policy, they go stale due to a reviewer shortage. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * First, if we already follow a neutrality policy, why waste spend our time and effort formalizing one? Second, in the time that you've been here, when have you seen that the current group of users could agree on much of anything to change or otherwise accomplish in our efforts to meet the project requirement of simply publishing news articles? Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 14:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC); edited 16:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * After re-reading my comment above I see how it could come across in the wrong tone. I am frustrated with the general grid-lock around here, not the proposal to develop a new policy. This project has a long history of difficulties in fulfilling its reason for existence; publishing news articles. I feel like we have several active and semi-active members right now who want to change things toward that goal and I'm trying (maybe too hard) to keep that energy focused on developing new reviewers. I could have worded the above comment better. My apologies. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 16:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I'm still against promoting it as a "policy", but I'm neutral about it as a "guideline" instead if it's more enforceable or enforced still. Thoughts, Michael? --George Ho (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we have limited capacity to make decisions collectively and therefore that capacity should be focused right now solely on achieving the project's goal; publishing news articles.
 * I don't see the lack of a neutrality policy impacting our ability to publish. I am not convinced there is a problem to solve here that is more important than the problem of too few reviewers.
 * @Me Da Wikipedian said @Michael.C.Wright, I think both you and @George Ho are acting like publishing articles and having more reviewers and having a neutrality policy are mutually exclusive. I believe these are not mutually exclusive concepts and there's a distinction between "having a neutrality policy" and "turning an essay into a policy." The latter process consumes reporters' and reviewers' time and attention, which could otherwise be directed towards increasing the number of active reviewers.
 * I agree that relying on institutional knowledge instead of clear policies and guidelines is problematic, especially given our shortage of active reviewers. However, I believe the lack of active reviewers is a more fundamental issue.
 * In other words; I feel like this is akin to arranging the deck chairs on the sinking titanic. As I said above on June 3; I think the writing is on the wall for en.wn:
 * As Bawolff intimated at Water cooler/Miscellaneous, we need to change the way en.wn is perceived. By my count, one could potentially argue we meet three of the proposed criteria to shutter a project:
 * Lack of impact on other Wikimedia projects and wider Internet infrastructure
 * Severe lack of community activity
 * Strong external project to merge with (Wikipedia)
 * I think the only way we avoid being shuttered is by publishing articles daily. Reporters aren't going to stay if they consistently "waste" their time writing articles that ultimately get deleted rather than published. Readers won't stay if they don't see anything new to read day after day (after day).
 * Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 14:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. However, I still don't understand why turning an essay into a policy is something you will significantly decrease article output.
 * Also, I really don't think we would be able to merge with Wikipedia well.
 * @Michael.C.Wright Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposed Removal of the Reviewer Permission From Tom Morris
After various reminders by George Ho with no response, I have requested the removal of the reviewer permission from Tom Morris. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)