• RIP Wikinews. You will be missed... Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 16:53, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Rest in peace Wikinews; this Wikimedia project is shutting down later. Thomasfan1916^{[built buses?]} 03:17, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Now that considering the whole rise in authoritarian acquisition of news outlets thing, shouldn't we encourage independent journalists to join Wikinews and maybe save it? nhals8 (rats in the house of the dead) 13:40, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @.nhals8 This is assuming that there is no such other place where this is not possible (in a better way), and that we have not tried this to little success for 20 years. I love to encourage journalists to do independent journalism while still being able to feed their families. But wikinews is not that, can never become that and is not designed to provide that. But this has all been discussed in the consultation at nauseum, I'd advise reading that. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:33, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It was never meant to replace paid journalists, only supplement. And no, there quite literally is no project where the public can submit on any topic, it simply doesn't exist. Template:Citizen journalism includes a number of niche topic sites (Mosul Eye), and sites with political views (Unicorn Riot, Project Veritas). There's nothing comparable, and checking out the last two, I can't find any reference on how one can apply to write for them. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Media consolidation by wealthy power brokers has been a thing for 50 years or so. In the 1970s, many authors predicted everything that is happening today and warned people to stay vigilant. As per tradition, nobody listened. Viriditas (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Is this an April Fool's joke or for real? Why Wikinews and not something like Wikispecies that's less active and doesn't serve that much of a purpose? Someone tell me if this is April fool's, please! VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 16:38, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  On whether we should encourage independent journalism. Actually, my stance is that no, we shouldn't. At our core (the wikimedia movement) we are here for education. There are many other great things we can do. To example extremes, we could help feed starving people, help homeless people, etc. But none of them are really related to our mission. That's why, I think wikispecies/wikibooks/wikiversity and other project that are even less active are still around and noone is advocating for their closure since while they are not as successful as Wikipedia, they still exist for education (unlike wikinews) Ladsgroup^overleg 23:27, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly; our mission is to store the collection of all human knowledge. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 23:31, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  This is an interesting comment. Do you view journalism and education as separate? They are not. Read our article on science journalism, as it goes into the history of journalism and education and how they relate. Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Side note, science journalism was one of the areas that English Wikinews "punched above average." I'm not sure the user, but they would do interviews with scientists. It had the same sort of accessibility as something like radio program Quirks and Quarks, but went much further into depth. That was the beauty of the platform, people could completely nerd out on niche topics. There was a contributor who deep-dived into Paralympic sport for a while, and years ago I attempted to interview all 500 candidates for Toronto's municipal election. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I am very impressed by your attempt at interviewing all the candidates for the election. It seems like something that should be done, because most candidates receive so little scrutiny. Why do you think Wikinews failed to take off?? Wakelamp (talk) d[@-@]b 09:31, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikimedia is in fact supporting independent journalism by asking users to violate WP:NOTNEWS while it is forbidden on WIkipedia to do so. So, Wikimedia bans news in Wikipedia, then closes Wikinews with words "many of its functions were eclipsed by the notable news coverage in Wikipedias". But handling news is banned on Wikipedia. Self-contradiction, self-violation, bad governance, degrading. --ssr (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  A reminder that WP:NOTNEWS is not a ban on news in Wikipedia, which is a common mis-reading. It is about no original reporting, considering the enduring notability of topics, substantial news coverage beyond a single event, and not being a gossip rag. The shortcut name and section heading sounds like "newspaper" like content is not allowed, which is not the case. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:06, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  This line disagrees with you "Our sister project Wikinews may be a better place to contribute current events." Guz13 (talk) 02:57, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Ha, that line has been an open lie for more than a decade. I actually softened the language a while back, but it was reverted to prolong the delusion. [1] - Fuzheado | Talk 08:19, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, just because that desperate promotional line for Wikinews exists doesn't mean that those guidelines aren't true. We are an encyclopedia, but it doesn't mean we cannot incorporate newspaper-like content or functions. - Fuzheado | Talk 08:23, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Shame on the Foundation for shuttering Wikinews, and for talking down to them while they're doing it. In a time where we're seeing fake news, AI generated hallucinations, and poorly-disclosed "sponsored content" right alongside legitimate journalism, I would've hoped that the Wikimedia Foundation would be encouraging citizen journalism rather than unceremoniously dumping 22 years worth of hard work. I hope that Wikispecies, Wikibooks, and the other "sick projects of Wikimedia" are paying attention, because it's "not Wikpedia's job to solve everything", and "there's no point in arguing" when their time comes. --Apixelate (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • You understand that you are linking to comments from (A) someone sitebanned from English Wikipedia and (B) an editor who is well-known as phrasing their opinions in a rather provocative and aggressive manner, yes? You only have 36 edits here on EnWiki but I can assure you that you can make any "side" look bad if you judge a conversation by its most aggressive participants. Plenty of Wikinews supporters made... questionable... posts on the consultation, as well. If you'd like to complain about the Foundation, then at least do them the honor of linking to what they wrote, not random discussion participants. I'll link it for you: meta:File:Sister Projects Taskforce Wikinews review 2024.pdf . This PDF is a respectful attempt to interrogate the current state of Wikinews even given optimistic assumptions. If you want to complain about the Foundation's judgment, do it based off what's in that document. SnowFire (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    It does indeed look like one of those folks is site-banned here (though their exact wording in that diff still appears in the meta:Proposal for Closing Wikinews), and I'll certainly concede the point that the loudest voices in the community aren't necessarily going to represent the exact decision-making process that the Foundation might've used.

    I have read the review (which did not include Wikinews contributors until it was complete), and I don't think there's going to be much disagreement on the question of whether or not Wikinews is meeting it's potential. But I'd personally rather see a reinvestment rather than a shuttering. WMF has plenty of resources, plenty of connections, and plenty of reason to boost that project rather than closing it and telling 22 years worth of people that they thank all contributors who have participated in Wikinews "[weren't] able to fulfil [their] promise." Apixelate (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2026 (UTC) _{(Note: Based on what SnowFire said below, I have replaced the log link to the appropriate user. --Apixelate (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2026 (UTC)}[reply]

    Procedural note: I'm not a fan of picking on random editors and would suggest we stop focusing on random good-faith participants in the discussion rather than the WMF. However, for the record, you have linked the wrong editor. It's the other one that's banned.

    The whole point of an outside review is to be an outside review. I hope you would agree that it is at least possible to imagine a case where there is a project that is objectively in trouble, that is struggling, that isn't succeeding in its goals, but the people who remain are deeply committed and insist everything is actually fine. An objective outside review is useful for figuring out if there's some way back, or if it's better to admit defeat. Imagine the reverse case - if an outside review had concluded that Wikinews was doing great, that'd have been a much stronger endorsement than a Wikinews insider declaring everything is great, right?

    Again, Wikinews was given decades, plural, to succeed. I would argue that PDF report shows that rather decisively it hasn't, and that it's not easy to fix. People have been trying to make it work, in good faith, for a long time. There isn't some easy "oh just try this" option that exists. And it should be stressed that precisely because news is important, it should not be done poorly. There is a similar principle on Wikipedia that we'd rather have no article at all on a topic than a problematic one. (This isn't to call out any one specific article on Wikinews as "problematic", many are fine, but... well, see the report on the lack of a community, which means a lack of community checking articles closely.) SnowFire (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally i found the review rather unconvincing. Quite frankly i'm not sure even english Wikipedia would pass that review. However, at the end of the day i think everyone agreed with the conclusion so it didn't really matter the logic to get there. Bawolff (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikispecies, Wikibooks, ... while not very active, they are still much closer to the core mission of Wikimedia (education) than Wikinews. I don't think looking at the number of active editors and readers per se is the criteria to shut down a project. Ladsgroup^overleg 23:30, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikibooks I like because it has a cookbook. But is this an April Fool's joke or not? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 23:32, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  A lot of these projects are going to lose editors due to AI. Guz13 (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I think wikibooks is reasonably active and fulfilling its goals. I do not understand the point of WikiSpecies in a world where Wikidata exists. It does not seem to add any value over Wikidata. If i was to pick a project to kill though i would say Wikiversity. Despite its lofty goals there is basically no meaningful educational content. Wikinews was a resounding success compared to Wikiversity. Bawolff (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I've never visited WikiNews, even once, despite being part of the project for over 20 years (before registering my account) - I'll say I'm sad to see a related project being shut down, and for all the people who worked to support it, for no personal benefit other than whatever motivated them personally. I hope they find another outlet. As somebody who has worked as a journalist, and messed around on Wikipedia over the years, to varying extents, I know that the mission of Wikipedia, at its core, is incompatible with the idea of original reporting. There is a certain degree of trust required with original research, which flies in the face of one of Wikipedia's pillars (WP:V, so important it has a rare single-letter shortlink). While we are bound to do our best to ensure verifiability, we ultimately cannot vouch for those sources, beyond our best attempt at consensus. I personally believe that were were never in any position to be an original source, and while I will miss this wing of Wikimedia's attempt at expanding beyond its original mission, I would instead welcome the now-abandoned individuals who spent their time building Wikinews to join our project, or to find other journalistic endeavors where they can contribute their unique flair, with respect to proper journalism, such that we can incorporate their work. Human writing needs more attention than ever these days. ASUKITE 21:34, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Many people create articles within minutes of news stories breaking so it's no surprise that Wikinews is going away. Guz13 (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This behaviour is banned by WP:NOTNEWS. In fact, Wikipedia, with its bad governance, will be overturned by Grokipedia, which will include news and will not impose bans on news, as it is governed by rationally thinking machine that will do its best to handle everything that Wikimedia fails to handle. --ssr (talk) 05:44, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To quote your user page, "If you happen to 'hate Wikipedia', do not use it." -- Zanimum (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bad governance is not a reason to not use Wikipedia which I don't hate. Think about it. --ssr (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that NOTNEWS isn't followed. In not following it, people add crazy unverified information within minutes of an event being reported. Guz13 (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder that WP:NOTNEWS is not a ban on news in Wikipedia, which is a common mis-reading. It is about no original reporting, considering the enduring notability of topics, substantial news coverage beyond a single event, and not being a gossip rag. The shortcut name and section heading sounds like "newspaper" like content is not allowed, which is not the case. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:06, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As a longtime editor on Wikinews with cca. 650 articles in ther German language version since 2008 I am totally desillusionated. The WMF does not know what she is doing. More and more and even more news content disappears behind pay walls. More and more news outlets are bought by right wing faschos. Democracy Dies in Darkness, the Washington Post claims – and is not allowed to write what they are supposed to write 'cause Mr Bezos has forbidden to do so. In a growing number of countries the press struggles due to influencing and regulation by governments, including such contries like Russia, Iran, Turkey, Hungaria, and the United States. And yet, I still did not call out fake news. And the Foundation is killing Wikinews. That's just nuts. Though, several of the communities in the diffrenzt languages made mistakes. They weren't the same mistakes on every place but some of them where severe. The redaction process (aka reviewing of articles) takes too long, is intransparent, and overreacting. However, arguing in the proposal failed. It were only a handfull people ro react, and there was no shitstorm the Foundation would have well deserved for doing this. Arguing now is way to late, they even did not comment on all the untruths in the proposal we called them out for. As this was discussed on Meta for months.

• Wikinews being shut down in this way is simply a disgrace. If one really goes and reads through the consultation page which countless people poured their effort, it becomes clear that throughout the entire discussion process, the SPTF paid no responses to issues big or small, reasonable or not, just nothing to everything. How? Does ignoring them make the doubts disappear? This includes many questions challenging the data as well as many simple requests just for clarification, they could at least have pretended to take things seriously! to uphold the grassroots principle a bit.

In the officially posted RfC, the retention side also achieved a complete victory—yet all of this was ignored. They had already decided on the outcome before the discussion even began, and still insisted on wasting a great deal of the community’s valuable time, dragging things out again and again, forcing so many volunteers to endure several difficult months. In the end, they would not even bother to, say, use AI to tally the community’s views on the page, and instead churned out a so-called “consultation result” that flatly contradicts reality, is completely one-sided, and even contains two duplicated paragraphs. and After they said nothing more.

If there is at least even 1% room left to salvage or justify this kind of indiscriminate, one-size-fits-all approach (and in fact, Wikinews readership in several major languages is relatively quite substantial), then the behaviour described above is a completely blatant, naked error—they are not even trying to pretend anymore.

What’s done is more or less done. But no matter what stance you hold on Wikinews, this is a total betrayal of the Wikimedia spirit and the ideals of the Wikimedia movement, and a complete trampling of the community. Perhaps there is little we can do, but I believe we should at least say something. This kind of thing must not happen and should not happen—yet now it has happened just like this. I, for one, cannot remain silent. I simply cannot. --Sheminghui.WU (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will note for the record that Sheminghui.WU made no less than 338 (!) edits to the consultation page. Multiple independent good-faith other editors disagreed with your analysis. I will also note that the German Wikinews edition had six active editors in the past 10 years. Six. One comment in the consultation noted a mere 24 non-bot edits in a month on German Wikinews as of July 2025, and these edits were not creating and approving well-formed articles in a single edit. German Wikinews was already moribund before the Foundation made this change. SnowFire (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument to close the German Wikinews, but if one project being moribund is rationale to close all of its siblings, then Wikipedia should have been closed 90 times over.

If this was done in good faith by the Foundation, they could have started with a consultation to see whether a top-down mandated change in policy would encourage activity. They didn't, they entered into this with a pre-determined result, and created a report with multiple issues. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A) I was replying to Shemingui.WU's comments on German Wikinews, so I figured this would be an important data point for casual browsers to know about, that German Wikinews was not a thriving website pointlessly turned off. Obviously, that was not why the whole project was closed; the whole project closed because every Wikinews edition had major problems, as is apparent from the linked PDF report above. B) Where, exactly, are you getting "pre-determined result" from? Do you have a contact at the Foundation who said "yeah the investigation was a sham and we sent in a hit squad"? Even if we grant (which I absolutely don't) that it was written by some sort of irrational Wikinews hater, it raised factual, severe problems that can be checked by a neutral, outside party. Problems that can't just be hand-waved away. SnowFire (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is a shame that one must disclose his personal life to react on your false data points. One: Since 2006 resp. 2008 I was an ever active user in the german WP and WN and helped by making those thriving. Until after 2013 when my mother had a stroke and had to move in a nursing home. Early 2022 my mother has died, and my Wiki-lifa callapsed almost totally. I tried to fascilitate my mourning process by taking part in the 100-wikidays contest which means that for 100 days I wrote one article each days. It did not help really, It has powered me out. I had to reduce my wikiwork in all the projects I was active in. Even worse, when I slownly started to come back I collided with the consultation of the proposal like hitting a train. I only worte a handful articles last year and not much more in Wikipedia, if at all. You cannot make a decision on a project by telling that a particular user isn't thriving anymore. Shame on you. More: This all had it's impact in other language versions, the calmed down significantly. Second, from the PDF linked above we can tell a thing or two in ZH and RU Wikinews, and maybe even a sentence on EN wikinews. But not on eny of the 30 other language versions since the PDF lacked any numbers on them. And I think that also the board did not have any further information. I even do not understand, was the number of links to News websites on one hand and to Wikinews on the other hand has a meaning at all. Even though I asked how this statistics for EN, RU and ZH was measured this metrics wasn't disclosed. Acutally the is no method to count links to Wikinews like n:Main page because these are not external links ("weblinks", which can be shown by Special pages "Weblinksuche" – I have no clue on the name of the special page in the EN WP). There also is no public tool to research incoming linkage from sister projects. And actually we don't use outgoing links in the German Wikipedia at all, except for templates within the Weblink section in articles. Template:Wikinews with the piped parameter "Hauptseite" sould link to the German WN mainpage. Interestingly this number is quiet higher than the corresponding number of the template doing the same in EN Wikipedia. So what this number is intending to say, aside from nothing? Third, as I showed in the discussion many if not all statements made in the PDF a.k.a. proposal are not true. They are utterly false. Since the board decided as he decided whe must believe that they are acting like irrational Wikinews haters. What an outside, neutral party most probably would find out. IMHU I never saw such a blatant try hiding of pre-made decisions. --Matthiasb (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• This article could have used more eyes before being published:
  • It doesn't refer at all to the archival Signpost coverage of the Wikinews debate, including an interview with the editors that forked away from it, a feature story, and this op-ed calling for English Wikinews' closure.
  • It does not mention nor summarize any of the existing materials that underlined why there was a public consultation in the first place. m:Proposal for Closing Wikinews, prominently linked from the public consultation, lays out some clear reasoning whether or not you agree with it. Its lack of activity was only part of the argument; there were also concerns with its lack of usefulness, useage, coverage, and synergy with other projects.
    • The Signpost could have even just blockquoted this line, which is partially bolded on Meta: "Wikinews is not viable as a global, multi-lingual sister project in the Wikimedia ecosystem and supported by the Wikimedia Foundation. The project does not fill a need in the world through useful articles, significant readership, or significant volunteer engagement. News articles are not a good fit for the wiki model, as shown in the low editor engagement and few revisions over time. There are many stronger alternatives for the broader mission of non-profit news.
  • The line "... Wikinews was also a platform for regular interviews with notable people ..." desperately needs a fact check, specifically on "regular" and "notable." Neither are true, as far as I'm aware. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:33, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tagging JPxG for visibility. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:35, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  there are interviews with notable people (i'm going to assume that notable means has a Wikipedia article). To pick some random examples [2] [3] [4] [5] Regular is pretty debatable, but then again isn't the entire rationale that wikinews lacks volunteer engagement. If anything was regular at this point in time, we wouldn't be here. Its probably a fair criticism that notable interviews were more common during Wikinews's peak which was a long time ago at this point. Bawolff (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @The ed17 and Bawolff: Sorry for coming across your comments just now. I must confess I didn't have a lot of time to work on the Wikinews blurb, since it was a last-minute submission, so I ended up rushing it. Mea culpa... If we'll report on Wikinews again once it's locked forever, I'll keep an eye on your suggestions. Thank you! Oltrepier (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikinews was a colossal waste of resources and I'm glad it has finally been put to rest. It was a failed project and it should have been ended 10 years ago. Nosferattus (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It did not, and when it would: were these your resources? Matthiasb (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikinews is how i got involved with Wikimedia. I basically learned to program for Wikinews, and also contributed my first patches to MediaWiki for Wikinews. In many ways I grew up there; it made me who I am today. I can't think of anything that had a larger impact on the trajectory of my life than Wikinews did. I started editing Wikinews when I was 14, and 2 decades later I guess i'm still here. I'm sad at this moment, but it was very clear it was dying and had been for a long time. It's like visiting your home town and discovering its been abandoned. I think the biggest mistake was spending too much time defining itself in opposition to Wikipedia solely for the sake of differentiating itself. It essentially became the Nupedia of news, with onerous peer review requirements, and tight deadlines. I think it also devolved into copying (rewriting) other news articles, instead of really creating new content that was more than the sum of its parts. That said, for a while I do think Wikinews accomplished something even if it never amounted to what we all hoped. In this moment of its death, i would encourage people to browse through n:Category:Featured article to get a sense of what it hoped to be. Bawolff (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Russian Wikinews community opposed the decision --ssr (talk) 07:40, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The consultation process is very concerning. Based on the criteria, there are a few 100 wikis that the BoT close using the same approach.

• Various unnamed groups advise they are concerned
• A review is announced,
• An anonymous external report is commissioned
• A finding is made based on number of readers and editors,
• Statements are made about bot traffic
• The BoT announces closure BEFORE working out migration Wakelamp (talk) d[@-@]b 12:18, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• and argued for access to edit Wikipedia outside the regulation of Wikipedia's bot policy on the rationale that an AI agent is more and different from a bot Link? The closest thing I could find in checking links of links was [6] where it merely claims it is "not quite a bot", despite Wikipedia:Bot policy#Definitions being clear that a bot is an automated process (which would include LLM-based AI agents) taking actions without ongoing human decision making. I wrote an essay at User:Anomie/AI agents and the bot policy that goes into things in more depth; feedback welcome, but please avoid more calls for WP:CREEP. Anomie⚔ 12:51, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Bots Have Standing? Yes. Yes they do. kencf0618 (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's odd that you chose a quote from a decision that upheld right against the destructive pressures of modern technology. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "Although most AfD discussions end with deletion, not all do. For example, articles may be draftified, stubified, or merged." They may also be retained as articles. Maproom (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]