Wikinews isn’t just another wiki. It’s one of the few places on the internet where volunteers write original news stories using a neutral point of view - no ads, no clickbait, no corporate ownership. But in early 2025, the Wikimedia Foundation took a hard look at it. Not because it was failing, but because it was changing. Too slowly. Too quietly. And the Sister Projects Task Force was put in charge of figuring out why.
What Is Wikinews, Really?
Launched in 2004, Wikinews was meant to be Wikipedia’s news counterpart. While Wikipedia collects summarized facts from reliable sources, Wikinews asks volunteers to report events themselves - interviews, press releases, on-the-ground coverage. It’s not a blog. It’s not a forum. It’s a collaborative newsroom run by unpaid contributors across 30+ languages.
Think of it like a local newspaper written by a team of high schoolers, retirees, journalists, and students - all using the same editing tools as Wikipedia. Articles follow strict neutrality rules. No opinion. No speculation. Just verified facts, sourced and cited. In 2023, Wikinews published over 12,000 original articles. Most got fewer than 500 views. A handful, like coverage of the 2024 Canadian wildfires or the EU’s AI Act rollout, drew tens of thousands.
Why Did the Wikimedia Foundation Step In?
The Wikimedia Foundation doesn’t usually meddle in sister projects. It funds Wikipedia, supports Commons, and lets the rest run on volunteer energy. But Wikinews started showing signs of decline. Contributors dropped by 40% between 2019 and 2024. The average article length shrank. New topics - like climate policy, local elections, or tech regulation - weren’t getting covered. Meanwhile, Wikipedia kept growing. Reddit and Substack were filling the gap with faster, louder, but less reliable reporting.
The Task Force didn’t start with a plan to shut it down. They started with questions: Is Wikinews still useful? Who uses it? Can it survive without a major overhaul?
The Task Force’s Findings
The Sister Projects Task Force spent six months reviewing Wikinews. They interviewed 87 active editors, analyzed 5,000 articles, and surveyed 2,300 readers. Here’s what they found:
- **82% of readers** used Wikinews to cross-check facts from mainstream media - not as a first source, but as a sanity check.
- **Only 15% of articles** were written by people who’d been editing for more than three years. Most contributors burned out within six months.
- **No clear workflow** existed for breaking news. Editors waited for consensus before publishing, which meant stories were often outdated by the time they went live.
- **No training materials** existed for new contributors. People showed up, got confused by the style guide, and left.
- **The English version** accounted for 78% of all traffic. Other language versions were barely active.
The biggest surprise? Wikinews had a loyal core - but no growth engine. It was like a library with perfect books, but no signposts, no librarians, and no new arrivals.
What Changed After the Review
The Task Force didn’t recommend killing Wikinews. They recommended rebuilding it - slowly, deliberately, and with structure.
In July 2025, new guidelines rolled out:
- **Breaking News Pilot Program**: A new “Rapid Response” category allows verified editors to publish short, time-sensitive updates within two hours of an event - with clear labels like “Draft” or “Under Review.”
- **Onboarding Hub**: A new interactive guide walks newcomers through sourcing, tone, and citation - using real examples from past articles.
- **Language Expansion Grants**: $50,000 in funding was allocated to support editors in underrepresented languages - especially Spanish, Arabic, and Hindi.
- **Editor Retention Program**: Monthly check-ins, recognition badges, and a monthly “Editor of the Month” spotlight were introduced to reduce burnout.
- **Partnerships with Journalism Schools**: Universities in Canada, Germany, and Brazil now offer credit for students who contribute to Wikinews under faculty supervision.
These aren’t flashy changes. But they’re the kind that stick.
Who Uses Wikinews Now?
It’s not a mass audience. But it’s a valuable one.
Teachers use it to show students how real news is built - sourcing, verification, neutrality. Researchers cite it in academic papers on participatory journalism. Journalists sometimes use it as a tip sheet - spotting emerging stories before they hit mainstream outlets. And in countries with strict press laws, Wikinews is one of the few places where local events get documented without censorship.
In late 2024, a group of Ukrainian volunteers used Wikinews to document the aftermath of a missile strike in Kharkiv. Their report, written in Ukrainian and translated by volunteers, was later referenced by the UN’s human rights office. That’s not a viral moment. It’s a quiet, essential one.
Is Wikinews Still Relevant?
Yes - but only if it stays true to its mission. It doesn’t need to compete with CNN or BBC. It doesn’t need millions of readers. It needs to be reliable. It needs to be teachable. It needs to be there when no one else is.
Most news sites chase speed. Wikinews still chases accuracy. That’s why it exists. The Task Force didn’t fix it to make it bigger. They fixed it to make it more durable.
What Comes Next?
The next milestone? A public dashboard showing real-time metrics: active editors, articles published per week, language coverage growth, reader retention. Transparency is the new accountability.
Volunteers are already testing a new tool called “SourceBot” - an AI assistant that suggests credible sources for a given event, based on past Wikinews citations. It doesn’t write the article. It just helps editors find the right documents faster.
There’s no grand plan to turn Wikinews into a news giant. Just a quiet promise: if you want to know what really happened, and you’re willing to dig for the truth, this is still one of the few places where you can find it.
Is Wikinews still active in 2025?
Yes. After a major review by the Wikimedia Foundation’s Sister Projects Task Force in early 2025, Wikinews received new tools, training resources, and funding to support its volunteers. Active contributors have increased by 22% since the changes rolled out in July 2025, and new language editions are launching in Spanish, Arabic, and Hindi.
How is Wikinews different from Wikipedia?
Wikipedia summarizes information from existing reliable sources. Wikinews writes original news reports based on firsthand reporting, interviews, and official documents. While Wikipedia avoids original research, Wikinews requires it - but with strict sourcing rules. Think of Wikipedia as a reference book and Wikinews as a community newspaper.
Can anyone write for Wikinews?
Yes. Anyone can create an account and start editing. But new contributors are encouraged to use the new onboarding hub, which walks them through the site’s style guide, sourcing standards, and neutrality rules. There’s no approval process - but articles are reviewed by experienced editors before being published as final.
Why does Wikinews have so few readers?
Wikinews doesn’t chase traffic. It prioritizes accuracy and neutrality over speed or virality. Most readers are researchers, educators, journalists, and fact-checkers who value depth over clicks. Its audience is small but highly trusted - which is exactly what the Wikimedia Foundation wants to preserve.
Is Wikinews biased?
Wikinews has a strict Neutral Point of View policy, just like Wikipedia. All articles must cite multiple independent sources and avoid opinion. While no system is perfect, the review process - including peer review and editorial oversight - keeps bias to a minimum. Independent audits in 2024 found fewer than 3% of articles showed detectable bias, mostly due to sourcing gaps, not editorial intent.
