Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard
- For details of the Board's role and processes, see the Board Handbook.
- Threads older than 90 days will be automatically archived by ArchiverBot.
SPTF recommendation to close Wikinews
[edit]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)
Board of Trustees Approves Closure of Wikinews
[edit]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)
- o7 Thanks to everyone ItsNyoty (talk) 09:19, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
- What will happen to the Wikinews projects in the Incubator? Таёжный лес (talk) 09:19, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:33, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- (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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Related discussion: n:Wikinews talk:Migration. -- Gryllida 10:29, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 (t • c) 21:29, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- nooooo :( —— Eric Liu（Talk） 11:55, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Ericliu1912 Why no? There are already burnden dozens of junk messages around this project. ~2026-20532-83 (talk) 06:16, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing Wikinews. This decision has been overdue for a long time. --Ameisenigel (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
- Where shall I dump the WP:NOTNEWS content on Wikipedia then? --魔琴 (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
- That "warning" is nonsense and should not even exist, to start with. - Darwin Ahoy! 17:50, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
- @DarwIn: are you responding to the right message? ltbdl (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
- That "warning" is nonsense and should not even exist, to start with. - Darwin Ahoy! 17:50, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- There's also Mirahese's proposal. Victoria (talk) 08:39, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
December 2025 and March 2026 board meetings outcomes
[edit]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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- That sounds good. Thanks. ↠Pine (✉) 04:45, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- @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)