The Signpost

File:Wikinews-logo.svg
Simon
CC BY-SA 3.0
124
0
549
News and notes

Entirety of Wikinews to be shut down

The writing's on the wall for Wikinews

On March 30, Board of Trustees member Victoria Doronina confirmed in a mailing list post that the Foundation has decided to permanently shut down the Wikinews project, one of Wikimedia's oldest projects. Starting on May 4, editing and new content creation will no longer be possible with all of the pages on the site locked in read-only mode.

The Italian version of Wikinews has reported that the WMF will issue a public statement on the project's closure on April 4, likely to elaborate more on the technical transition to read-only mode and the preservation of existing content, as anticipated by Doronina in her own post.

First launched in November 2004, following an online vote on Meta, Wikinews was an official Wikimedia project based on news reporting and citizen journalism, intended by Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales as a way to write each story "as a news story, as opposed to an encyclopedia article". Despite its fair share of criticism about its compliance to a neutral point of view, Wikinews was also a platform for regular interviews with notable people including the likes of Shimon Peres, Tony Benn, Robert Cailliau, RuPaul and former WMF executive Sue Gardner. However, the project has always struggled to gain momentum in comparison to other Wikimedia portals throughout the years: at the time of this issue's publication, the platform is active in 31 languages, with just over 700 active editors across the board.

For this reason, following a public consultation, in November 2025 the Sister Projects Task Force (SPTF) advised the BoT to cease the activity of Wikinews permanently, a decision that has now come into full effect.

In her post, Doronina wrote:

We thank all contributors who have participated in Wikinews over the years and helped build a unique experiment in collaborative journalism within the Wikimedia movement. We understand that some of them may be disappointed by this decision. To our regret, the project wasn't able to fulfill its promise, and many of its functions were eclipsed by the notable news coverage in Wikipedias. We hope the Wikinews editors will continue contributing to the other Wikimedia projects or free knowledge projects.

O

The Encyclopedia that anyone human can edit

For the first time, Wikipedia editors blocked a user account operated by a self-proclaimed AI agent. While Wikipedia has long had Wikipedia:Bot policy to regulate the use of Internet bots which perform large numbers of repetitive and tedious edits for Wikipedia maintenance, there is now precedent to regulate artificial intelligence when it claims to have mustered up enough volition to edit the encyclopedia. User:TomWikiAssist identified themselves as a Wikimedia user driven by Claude, created a new Wikipedia article, 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. In the current state of technology, the account is likely controlled by a human who set all of this up, but also in the current state of technology, setting up an AI to operate Wikipedia accounts without further human intervention is readily imaginable as something that can happen right now with little effort and at low cost.

Wikipedia commentary blog The Wikipedian gives a narrative of the exchange along with an interpretation of the significance of it. Note: although The Wikipedian blog is a long-time Wikimedia community favorite source for wiki commentary, at the bottom of the post, the human author disclosed that they also used a less-sentient-presenting aspect of Claude to edit their story. – Br

Articles for discussion instead of Articles for deletion?

Village pump:policy hosts an RfC on renaming AfD, opened on 24 March.

Outcomes via consensus at AfD do not always mean deletion, or only deletion. Although most AfD discussions end with deletion, they don't all. For example, articles may be draftified, stubified, or merged. The last mentioned outcome used to be mainly discussed at Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers, but the forum has been moved to AfD by a recent Request for comment which was closed on 24 March. – B

Brief notes

Can you help improve Ancient music? (Mosaic from Pompeii shown.)
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.
  • RIP Wikinews. You will be missed... Starlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 16:53, 31 March 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 [1] 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]
  • 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 (talkcontribs) 14:33, 31 March 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]
  • 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]

















Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2026-03-31/News_and_notes