Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard - Meta-Wiki

Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard - Meta-Wiki
Jump to content
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment:
6 hours ago
by Meow in topic
Board of Trustees Approves Closure of Wikinews
Board of Trustees
Board noticeboard
Archives
Shortcut
BN
Welcome to the
Board of Trustees
' noticeboard. This is a message board for discussing issues related to Wikimedia Foundation governance and policies, and related Board work. Please post new messages at the bottom of the page above the navbox and sign them.
For details of the Board's role and processes, see the
Board Handbook
Threads older than 90 days will be automatically archived by
ArchiverBot
Official website
Foundation website feedback
Governance Wiki
Bylaws
Policies
Departments
Make a donation
Board of Trustees
Board meetings
on Meta-Wiki
Noticeboard
Board handbook
Resolutions
Elections
Affiliate selections
Wikimedia affiliates
Local chapters
(40)
Thematic organizations
(2)
User groups
(143)
Resources
Projects
Servers
Visual guidelines
Logos
Slogans
This box:
view
talk
edit
Archives
Archives
SPTF recommendation to close Wikinews
edit
Latest comment:
1 month ago
1 comment
1 person in discussion
In late June, the Sisters Project Task Force (SPTF) recommended closing
Wikinews
. Since then, a lengthy public consultation took place, during which contributors were given the expectation that the
Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
would possibly make a decision around December of last year.
No further announcement has been made regarding the recommendation, the outcome of the consultation, or the anticipated next steps.
The prolonged uncertainty has been significantly disruptive to the English Wikinews community. Contributors are left unsure whether they are working to build and improve the project or maintaining a project that may soon be closed.
We respectfully ask the Board to clarify the status of the SPTF recommendation and indicate when a decision, or at minimum a timeline for a decision, can be expected.
Clarity—even if the answer is difficult—is far preferable to continued silence.
Michael.C.Wright
talk
01:31, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
Board of Trustees Approves Closure of Wikinews
edit
Latest comment:
6 hours ago
41 comments
26 people in discussion
Following
extended discussions
within the Wikimedia movement about the Wikinews long-term sustainability, levels of community activity, and the availability of reliable news coverage on other platforms, the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has approved the closure of Wikinews.
Following this decision, all Wikinews editions will transition to read-only mode one month after this announcement, on 4 May. From that date onward, pages on Wikinews will remain publicly accessible for reading, reference and dump downloading, but editing and new content creation will no longer be possible.
Further information about the technical transition to read-only mode and the preservation of existing content will be shared in the coming weeks.
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, and we understand that some of them might be disappointed by this decision. To our regret, the project wasn’t able to fulfil 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.
Victoria
talk
09:00, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
o7 Thanks to everyone
ItsNyoty
talk
09:19, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
What will happen to the Wikinews projects in the Incubator?
Таёжный лес
talk
09:19, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
They will definitely be made read only, but I'm not sure about the long term preservation as they didn't pass the muster.
Victoria
talk
07:44, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
I'm sorry for those community members, I really understand this hits them hard. But I do think this is for the better, both for those communities and for Wikimedia itself. —
Th
DJ
talk
contribs
09:33, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
This is a clear example of how the Wikimedia Foundation has become indistinguishable from any for-profit company.
Таёжный лес
talk
10:06, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
Yes. One of the complaint is the original report from WMF was "our servers nearly crashed once". Well, news can be relatively expensive to host at times.
Gryllida
10:30, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
This is not true - in fact, they crashed the servers twice for a significant amount of time.
Victoria
talk
07:46, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
(In case anyone else is also wondering, I assume these comments are referring to what's written under
Proposal for Closing Wikinews § Systemic conflict caused by Russian Wikinews
.)
‍—‍
a smart kitten
meow
09:45, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
Related discussion:
n:Wikinews talk:Migration
. --
Gryllida
10:29, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
There has been some interest (
n:Wikinews talk:Migration
) in migrating to self-hosting or to Miraheze. Would the Wikimedia Foundation retain ownership of the Wikinews trademarks and logos, and would we be allowed to continue using the name? @
Victoria
, @
LLosa (WMF)
. --
Asked42
talk
contribs
10:40, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
If possible, kindly issue an official explanation relate to the trademark and usage: @
User:Kritzolina
, @
User:Nadzik
, @
User:Bobbyshabangu
, @
User:Aegis Maelstrom
. -- --
Asked42
talk
contribs
10:43, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
Hi. We need “appeal”, (of course)If an appeal is not possible, then we now need space for “negotiation” and discussion on cooperation. Or both. We are all contributors to Wikimedia, and we hope we can still remain sincerely united, support one another, and work together with shared purpose to complete the transition work. We also hope that you can, at the very least, continue to engage warmly with our community and provide support in the spirit of the Wikimedia movement. Thank you. --
Sheminghui.WU
talk
11:14, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
Frankly, I don't see an avenue for an appeal - the Board, which voted unanimously - is certainly is not ready to reconsider the decision.
Thank you for your positive attitude.
Victoria
talk
07:59, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
If the Board does not want to listen to feedback from Wikinewsians, and does not want to listen to our arguments and reasoning for keeping the project afloat, and does not want to base its decision on opinions of Wikinewsians, and does not want to explain its decision, then it should resign.
BilboBeggins
talk
18:38, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Reply
The board was presented with a report from the task force. That report was based on literally months worth of feedback online and in person at Wikimania last year. Just because they came to a conclusion that you disagree with does not mean they did not listen.
Thryduulf
(talk:
meta
en.wp
wikidata
19:10, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Reply
I have seen this report, it was of extremely bad quality, they couldn't even spell
w:Dabney Coleman
correctly.
BilboBeggins
talk
21:16, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Reply
The report with the outcome basically predetermined? The same report in which the consultation excluded Wikinewsians because they were ostensibly in a conflict of interest? The same report consultation where criticising the SPTF and how they handled the closure? Yeah nah, there are some valid reasons for closing Wikinews, but citing a deeply flawed report with an equally flawed consultation is poor reasoning. //
shb
21:29, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Reply
Hi Thryduulf, I would like to clarify a few things. There was a report written without communicating with the users on wiki at all until after it was completed. The report contained notes about inconsistency in reporting, excessively high server load, high quantity of imported articles via bots, and a few other points, along with a note of something like that 'we recommend archiving or closing the project'. The public consultation was started only after that and caused a few substantial changes leading to addressing some of the concerns raised, and these reforms were not discussed with WMF, at least not before March 30. I hope you understand.
Gryllida
03:55, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Reply
I can't determine which is worse - that we have (or
had
) SPTF and the report, or that the Board
actually
trusted them. --
魔琴
talk
16:42, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Reply
nooooo :( ——
Eric Liu
Talk
11:55, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
Ericliu1912
Why no? There are already burnden dozens of junk messages around this project.
~2026-20532-83
talk
06:16, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Reply
Thank you for closing Wikinews. This decision has been overdue for a long time. --
Ameisenigel
talk
13:08, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
Where shall I dump the WP:NOTNEWS content on Wikipedia then? --
魔琴
talk
13:42, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
That "warning" is nonsense and should not even exist, to start with.
Darwin
Ahoy!
17:50, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Reply
DarwIn
: are you responding to the right message?
ltbdl
talk
17:51, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Reply
A decision long overdue. The resolution states that WMF will be 'supporting and providing resources to groups exploring new paradigms for Wikimedia news content'. What exactly does this mean?
AtUkr
talk
07:48, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
We are in talks with Wikimedia NYC about their possible hosting of English Wikinews. But it's literally early days.
Victoria
talk
08:00, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
There's also Mirahese's proposal.
Victoria
talk
08:39, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
AtUkr
, that sentence means that if you have a group [NB:
not
just an individual person or two], and you want to do news stuff, and you have a good idea, then your group should talk to them. Maybe they'll like your idea better than others. Maybe they won't. But talking to them is the place to start.
Purely as a practical matter, I suggest that any such group lead with a funding plan that requests the WMF to pay for <50%, and for the requested amount to decline over the next ~5 years.
WhatamIdoing
talk
19:43, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
Would the authorities release the domain «Wikinews.org» and hand it to Wikinewsies? Or will it be mothballed to avoid rivalry by any communities of outsiders? --
Incnis Mrsi
talk
12:05, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
I suspect that the answer to this will depend on whether any groups are successful at finding viable alternative hosting. If no, then at least for the initial period the domains all will point to where they currently do but the destination will be read only. The
Sep11wiki
was in that state for around 6 months I think, and I'd be surprised if that wasn't the minimum time they'd consider in this case. That project never had it's own domain though so it doesn't provide a guide for that, but I would be
extremely
surprised if they let the wikinews domain lapse as it would be very quickly picked up by squatters.
If a viable alternative location
is
found then I would expect the outcome would be determined by discussion between the group(s) and the WMF about such matters.
Thryduulf
(talk:
meta
en.wp
wikidata
17:09, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Reply
Agreeing that lapsing the domain is almost certainly unrealistic. My thought is that if the community finds no consensus to pursue alternative hosting, Wikimedia would probably keep it in read-only for the foreseeable future, if not indefinitely. If the project does move to a new host, it would almost certainly need to retain its current domain names to have any chance to succeed in relevancy. The logistics of this would be interesting and to my knowledge has very little precedent: for one, the policy at
wikitech:Domains
seems to say that Wikimedia will not point main canonical domains under it’s control to third parties. This obviously wouldn’t be as much of an issue if the Foundation agreed to entirely transfer ownership and control of the domain to say, WikiNYC (which would make sense along with the legal assets), but that’s something that awaits a formal confirmation from WMF Legal.
PixDeVl
talk
17:40, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Reply
The WMF hosting a landing page that points to the external content with a brief explanation and/or sets up something like a soft redirect for deep links may be something they would consider. There may also be options with things they don't considered "main canonical domains" (wiki-news.org appears to be controlled by the WMF for example).
Thryduulf
(talk:
meta
en.wp
wikidata
18:01, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Reply
Keeping the wikinews.org domain as an intermediate/redirect is a possibility, not preferable certainly but if Legal wouldn’t allow for the full transfer of the domain, certainly the next best option.
PixDeVl
talk
18:09, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Reply
Soft redirection is reasonable, but it should never replace a separate soft-close archive within the Wikimedia framework, as normal. --
Sheminghui.WU
talk
09:11, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Reply
My guess is that wikinews.org is still under WMF control, at least to display a read-only version of the past archives. However, we could try to negotiate with them to add a banner informing users that the project has moved elsewhere.
Niryhpr!
16:00, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Reply
☹️
JJLiu112
talk
00:23, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
Reply
F to pay respects. While I did support closure I was also more in support of restructuring it into something like a news magazine. If the community wanted to stay on Wikimedia they could propose a new project with such a scope, but I certainly won’t be doing any such thing because new projects have about a million-to-1 chance of being picked up let alone becoming successful.
— The preceding
unsigned
comment was added by
Dronebogus
talk
13:06, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Reply
Sadly, this is just the behavior of zhwikinews, they consider that this decision as "April Fool":
n:zh:Wikinews:愚人节新闻/维基新闻愚人节专题：WMF商讨后决定关闭维基新闻
~2026-23305-80
talk
04:59, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
Reply
This is from 2024.
08:07, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
Reply
December 2025 and March 2026 board meetings outcomes
edit
Latest comment:
19 days ago
6 comments
2 people in discussion
December meeting
edit
The Board met on December 10, 2025 for its last business meeting of 2025.
Bobby Shabangu
and
Michał Buczyński
were appointed as trustees and joined their first meeting of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. The Board voted to update its
Board Officers,Committee membership
and liaison roles as well.
The Board expressed its appreciation to Shani Evenstein Sigalov and Mike Peel for their years of service as they wrapped up their terms on the Board. The Board also expressed its appreciation for Maryana Iskander’s outstanding leadership as CEO. The Board also recognized Nataliia Tymkiv for her leadership as Chair and for her nine years of dedicated service as a Trustee.
The
Neutral Point of View Working Group
provided an update to the Board, which included feedback collected from NPOV sessions at regional conferences over the past few months. Staff also provided an update on the content reuse objectives in the annual plan to build a scalable system for reuse.
Much of the meeting was focused on Board business. The Board approved a
resolution
, which was brought forward by the Sister Projects Task Force as a
recommendation
, and approved by the Community Affairs Committee, to:
Keep the current Wikispore's technical setup, as it is functioning  and supports ongoing experimentation; and explore options for closer alignment with the Incubator.
Plan for the archival of all editions of Wikinews, and support the exploration of new paradigms for Wikimedia news content by community members.
Instruct the Language Committee not to consider or approve new language versions of Wikinews.
You can read more about the changes
here
The Board also made changes to its committee structures. As part of its regular practice of reviewing governance structures and in alignment with planned leadership transitions within the Wikimedia Foundation, the Executive Committee began a review process in early 2025 of its committee structures. The review process included evaluating the governance structures of other Boards similar in size and mission to the Wikimedia Foundation, reviewing the trends in the nonprofit sector regarding governing bodies, and reviewing how the current structure of committees is serving their purpose. The Executive Committee made a recommendation to create Community and Affiliate liaisons in the Board, who will lead community engagement across Board committees and at Board meetings, and continue forward the work of the Community Affairs Committee (CAC). The Board acknowledges and appreciates the work the Community Affairs Committee has done, and with this decision reaffirms its commitment to hearing directly from communities about concerns and questions. In addition, Trustees will continue to attend regional community conferences to hear from community members directly. The resolution can be found
here
. The Board also updated committee charters to reflect these changes, which can be found
here
March
edit
The Board met on Friday, March 13, 2026 to hold its quarterly meeting. The Board took the following corporate actions:
Approval of
minutes, December 2025
Approval of
minutes, February 2026
During the business meeting, the Board heard updates from the Neutral Point of View working group and received a confidential legal briefing, which is a standard practice for the Board. The meeting ended in an executive session.
Throughout the week, the Board also participated in other meetings, including sessions with the Affiliations Committee (AffCom) and the Global Resource Distribution Committee (GRDC). The Board also joined the Foundation’s Annual Planning sessions as well as a Strategic Retreat day with participants from AffCom, GRDC, the Product and Technology Advisory Council and members of the Endowment Board.
LLosa (WMF)
talk
12:54, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Reply
LLosa (WMF)
thank you for sharing the meeting minutes. The first line of your message says "March 13" but perhaps you meant February 13. That is easily to fix if needed. I have a more substantive request. Before the Board meets, would it please post the meetings' agendas 2 weeks in advance, and encourage questions and comments on the talk pages of the agendas? That might be helpful for two-way communication. Thanks again,
↠Pine
19:30, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Reply
The board meeting was indeed on March 13.
We could potentially publish the agenda before the meeting but per se it wouldn't be very useful. In March, the agenda of the formal board meeting had just a few points and they are either topics that are already publicly discussed and those conversations are better placed elsewhere (NPOV, annual plan), or confidential (the legal briefing), or standard items (approving the minutes, executive session). Many of the things that we discuss benefit from a wider engagement but there are broader processes for that. -
LLosa (WMF)
talk
20:26, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Reply
Hi
LLosa (WMF)
, thanks for the prompt response. I see that I misread the page. I suggest renaming the links "Minutes, December 2025" and "Minutes, February 2026" to "Approval of minutes, December 2025" and "Approval of minutes, February 2026", respectively, which would be clearer to me as a reader. Regarding the agendas, I would encourage the Board to publish them in advance even if the bulk of detailed discussions on the agenda items are already happening elsewhere. Confidential sections of agendas are easy enough to indicate with a balance of specificity and vagueness, such as grouping all legal discussions under the single agenda item "Legal issues to be discussed confidentially in executive session". Thanks,
↠Pine
05:07, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Reply
Well, we can try that for the next meetings and see if it feels useful. And I've edited the message.
LLosa (WMF)
talk
20:31, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Reply
That sounds good. Thanks.
↠Pine
04:45, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Reply
Retrieved from "
Categories
Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
Noticeboards
Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard
Add topic