Help & FAQs

Feedback on everything please!

Natalia is our VP of Digital and is very keen to have a very detailed open dialogue with the community in a very agile and vocal way to help her understand as deeply as possible what the needs of the community are. Right now, Jimmy and Fiona are the only people on the team with deep MediaWiki/Wiki experience and we are giving feedback as quickly as we can, but of course we don’t spot everything and we also want to iterate/innovate on traditional wiki experiences.

Let’s gather product ideas here and then Jimmy and Natalia will review and prioritize.  Some things will obviously have to wait as we have limited resources, but other things (particularly things that are both easy and crucial to collaboration) can be done quite quickly in the next few weeks.

Feel free to edit this page, but mainly let’s use the talk page to put forward ideas.

Be the change. Support WikiTribune's mission to fix the news - Jimmy Wales

Support us

History for Project "Feedback on everything please!"

Select two items to compare revisions

  1. Time Contributor Edit
  2. A Anthony Vadala (Contributions | Talk) removed extra space
  3. J Julian Garamendy (Contributions | Talk) removed extra space
  4. Natalia Avdeeva Natalia Avdeeva (Contributions | Talk) added a link to the Talk page
  5. Jimmy Wales Jimmy Wales (Contributions | Talk) new page requesting feedback

Talk for Project "Feedback on everything please!"

Talk about this Project

  1. Our ‘Current Affairs’ column is now showing signs of misfit between the headlines, the content and the photos chosen to illustrate them. Here’s an example from this morning’s page:
    – photo shows Capitol Hill in Washington,
    – headlines say ‘US government shutdown begins’ (so far so good!) and ‘Turkey attacks Kurdish enclave’,
    – but upon clicking, you discover that other items are included, which have no relation to the headlines nor the photo: ‘Rohingya leaders made demands before repatriation’, ‘United Nations accused of sexual assault and harrassment culture’, plus ‘What we’re reading’ and ‘What the WikiTribune community is up to’.

    It’s obviously a difficult problem, but could WT Tech team look at one possible solution: turn the still photo into a slide show, with the headline of each story imbedded in the corresponding photo? If this is feasible, readers could then quickly browse through the slides and click on the one they are first interested in?


    1. And here’s an example of a website offering such a solution, with a slide show on which you can click on any slide to open the correcponding text: . Thanks.

    2. Thanks for you feedback, Jean-Jacques. We aware of the problem and will look into how to make presentation of Briefing more logical / easier to process.

  2. I would like to report a bug.

    On my WikiTRIBUNE profile page that the time stamp is way off. It says that my posts were made “00:00:00, 01 Jan 1970”

  3. I noticed that there is currently no dark/night mode. This would be extremely useful for people like me who read new stories early in the morning and late at night.

  4. What does WikiTribune like to do in investigative journalism?

    I am writing this because I have been working for some considerable time on a story which has extraordinary conseqences once it is fully documented. Like all the best investigative stories and miscarriages of justice (Watergate; Netflix ‘Making a Murderer’; Serial etc.) it starts with minor stuff which points to bigger and bigger issues as the case has progressed.

    I only came across the matter when three years ago the wife of the victim found my personal site on the internet and sent me a ‘Crie de Coeur’ which sparked my interest and led to me corresponding with her over the following months. It is a very British case – in America you have miscarriages of justice with cover-ups, false evidence, corrupt practices and the like on death row while in Britain we appear to have them in our Employment Tribunals. But like “Watergate” which started with a bungled burglary by minor staff, the trail, in this case, appears to indicate malpractice at the very heart of the system.

    I gave her some advice which led eventually to Owen Bowcott writing this short piece in the Guardian.

    But the story continues — could this be something which WikiTribute might follow up?

  5. This page is not searchable, and is paginated and the vast white space is highly inefficient making reading these ideas unwieldy.
    Also, why are we supporting twitter instead of something like mastodon or gnusocial on profile pages?

  6. Two things I’ve noticed is there’s no quick delete account button in settings and no way to change your email address on the profile page.

    1. Yes, having a quick way to delete on online account in this day and age is a must.

      I would also suggestion adding on option for 2FA for logging in to prevent account hijacking and maybe a log of the last view times an account has signed in with IP / browser & os / geo-location.

    2. Thanks Colin, makes sense, both are on our roadmap. Right now you can request to change your email address or delete your account, and we will do it for you.

  7. Unable to upload a profile picture. The button is unresponsive. Changing to much information in the profile at once gives me the message that I am not signed in.

    1. I am having the same issue with the profile picture button. I am running on Firefox 58 on macOS 10.13.2 with all addons turned off.

      1. Thanks Andrew and Anthony, we will fix it asap. Sorry for any inconvenience.

  8. The story “Nintendo unveils DIY cardboard accessories for the Switch” is paid advertising. After some investigation, I determined that this user sells his “services” to manipulate trends and such. I uploaded an image to the media library as a proof.

    I believe this is a breaking point for WikiTribune: if we allow this “agent” and his story to remain online, we’re going to encourage more “agents” to come here and spam us with paid advertising. Our security level is extremely lax at the moment and we don’t have enough manpower to police this kind of activity. If the word spreads that it’s easy to come here and write a story promoting a product, then not one but a hundred or a thousand will come to do the same thing. In no time we’ll have more pending stories about this kind of stuff than anything else.

    I don’t think WikiTribune’s destiny is to become a Bazaar, so I vote for enacting a general rule restricting stories that revolve around a commercial product of any kind. In particular, forbid stories that revolve around the launch of a product; the kind that reads something like “xxxx product will be released on xxx and will have two versions, one costing xxx and another costing xxx”. If a commercial product deserves media coverage (because it’s based on a groundbreaking technology or something similar), we can skip the typical advertising content “it cots this much”, “you can buy it here”, etc. and just focus on what makes it important.

    I think it’s time to keep the naivety in check: not everyone will come here with good intentions The way I see the dynamics around here unfolding, we’re not prepared for things like vandalism. We should prepare for the rainy days before it’s too late.

    My suggestion here: keep the story, but replace the content with a warning to potential “agents”.

    1. Thanks for bringing this up – we’ll take a look but could you please email any screenshots to me rather than uploading them? It could be a potential violation of privacy. I have got it for my records now.

    2. Similarly right now the first thing on the page is a Vlad. Putin image that is propogandistic, an image released for the purpose of shaping opinions in a controlled way of a political figure, this is a bad first impression of the project for me.

  9. On Talk, Jeffrey H. expresses his disagreement with Linh’s piece ‘”Asian regimes act on Trump message that media is ‘enemy of the people’”, and his comment appears under the heading ”Flagged as bias”. IMHO, Linh’s article does not deserve the qualification of ”bias”. I too have commented on Linh’s piece, and inadvertently let it appear under ”Rewrite”.
    May I suggest that the tabs should be placed in a different order, with ”Comment” coming first, followed by ”Suggest change”, and ”Bias or other problem”, in that order. Thus, the default space would first be ”Comment”, which is what most readers want to contribute, without necessarily waving the red card of bias, nor the yellow card of rewrite. Thanks.

  10. We are still in a pilot phase and still saying true to our plan to write what matters rather than seeking clicks per se. We had more than 200,000 visitors in the past two months. We have, as of today, 5,900 registered users and at this point a fraction of those people — around 10 per cent — is choosing to submit stories or engage in TALK or changes to content. However, some contributors make an outsize contribution in terms of quality or volume — such as your own series of essays — where as others prefer to focus on style and addressing style or other areas. There are many levels of engagement from simple registration, passive reading and on up to a handful of people like you who submit major pieces of individual work. The vast majority of our stories — about 550 in the past two months — were created by our staff team but as the pilot catches light the point is that eventually that would be outstripped by contributions from the community. TALK is by far the most frequent and easy way to contribute and the FEEDBACK ON EVERYTHING wikiproject is by far the most popular with more than 600 TALK entries.

    1. Many thanks Peter! Yes, I am aware that WT is still in Pilot phase. The figures you provide are interesting: 200,000+ visitors in the past 2 months, and 5,900 registered users. Congratulations to you and your team! These growing numbers give community contributors a sense of purpose. I’m looking forward to further contributing, and to WT evolving beyond Pilot phase!

  11. 10/10
    Feedback is coming in I see 😀
    Great, keep telling us when you want even more of it, we will provide if asked.

  12. Hi all,

    I’m getting he following webpage when I click the read and reply link on emails notifying me that someone replied or commented on a talk o subscribed to. Is anyone else experiencing this?

    Sorry, this isn’t the WikiTribune news you want
    There may be an error in the link you followed to get here.

    It makes sense to go back to the WikiTribune home page and start again please.

    If this keeps happening please contact us here.”

    1. Hi Mark,

      Thank your very much for reporting. We are looking into it.

  13. Hello WT team. Community member AD posted a comment on the Talk page of a story I started on the academic boycott of Elsevier which went live on Monday 10 January 2018. The posting is pure opinion and does not contribute to the improvement of the story. Does WT have a policy on Talk pages? Wikipedia has a strong policy that Talk pages are not to be used for commenting on the associated article. I believe that if WT does not have a similar firm and enforced policy on Talk pages then they will become filled with chatter, quite possibly toxic, and will rapidly cease to be useful. Hence further feature requests:

    12/ A Talk page policy: a clear policy that Talk pages are to be used solely for the purpose of improving the associated story.

    13/ Flag-abuse button. A flag-abuse button that would alert WT staff to evaluate a post and delete it as needed.

    1. As far as I know the Talk page is moderated. You can remove comments you consider inappropriate at any time. I’d advise against interfering with user comments, though, unless it’s something serious.

      1. Thanks. Still I worry that the Talk pages will become clogged with the kind of comment, much of it off-topic and more that mildly abusive, that the online trad media websites attract.

        A legal question. I guess the Talk pages are under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license too. I read the Terms and Conditions section 7 on the Licensing of Content. It talks about “when you submit text”. Perhaps it should be made clear that this covers Talk pages, if indeed it does, as well as articles.

        In addition, the license in use should be noted at the bottom of *every page* and not be buried in the Terms and Conditions under paragraph 7(a)(1). It is also good practice (and quite possibly a legal requirement) to at least link to a full copy of said license in the Terms and Conditions.

  14. An app would be really useful – it’s how I get most of my news (BBC News app) and having Wikitribune on a par would be a real help – also for commenting/reviewing!

    1. Yeah. FIrst RSS and the app as a dedicated RSS reader.

        1. Will the official app be developed as an open source project? Or do you wish to keep the communication protocols hidden?

          On that note, why not open up a wide-ranging public web API set (as twitter does) and allow third parties to write their own apps? While noting that twitter is considerably more interactive than WT.

  15. Looking ahead to a dedicated platform

    After filing my first story (on the Elsevier academic boycott), it seems to me, as a geek, that WordPress is not well suited to verifiable collaborative journalism.

    WordPress does work. Just. But there are many essential features missing and I am guessing that these would be difficult to implement natively. I would therefore suggest that WT consider building its own platform as a priority. Let me explain, while noting that these are very sketchy thoughts. The issue of public sources is covered first, with protected sources at the end.

    1/ References: WT does not support linking to references from within the story. In contrast, Wikipedia does a great job in this respect.

    2/ Bibliographic database: WT should ideally run a central bibliographic database rather than use ad-hoc story-local entries.

    3/ Sorting, tracking, and linking to sources and other backup material: verifiable journalism requires that the sources and other backup material be stored on the site and be duly versioned, indexed, and retrievable. This feature should be integrated with points 1 and 2 above.

    4/ WT email addresses: I am trying to decide whether WT domain email addresses for all contributors would be a good idea or not. If so, all email traffic in the name of WT could be automatically captured and stored by WT.

    5/ A git bridge: the Overleaf collaborative editing platform offers a git interface so that users can work locally with git, tracking their own changes, before pushing their markup back to the Overleaf site. This feature would be a great addition to WT.

    Now turning to protected sources. This is more difficult. Such sources could be stored on the WT site privately and perhaps even encrypted with the associated passphrase held by trusted persons. If the contributor retains this information, it is prone to loss: both data loss or loss of contact with the contributor. And therefore unavailable as a defense in the event of deformation or other legal action. The concept of private sources would include email traffic by contributors containing, for instance, the raw quotations used in a story.

    Finally, is there any chance of getting dedicated discussion site running. These WordPress Talk pages are extremely basic when compared to the discourse software for instance. Could WT set up a public discourse forum? That’s a very minor task, unlike the grand idea above.

    I am hugely encouraged by the concept of WT. It completely inverts that gateway that established media operates upon, while not being the ill conceived free-for-all that twitter mostly is.

    with best wishes, Robbie

    1. The more I think about it, the more need there is for a secure repository where contributors can upload important artifacts related to individual stories. We contributors need protection as much WT does. And we, as individuals, might not class as journalists under law (the US constitution, UK media law, elsewhere too I imagine). Hence:

      6/ Secure upload repository: a place where contributors can upload important emails, notes, documents, and similar evidence, with appropriate metadata and tagged to specific stories. This feature should support GPG signed commits (as git and GitHub do). A policy on encrypted files should be considered (although it is not possible to determine a file is encrypted, only that it is binary data of unknown provenance). Access would be strictly limited to key WT personnel.

      Some further feature requests:

      7/ Print to PDF: a print to PDF button would be great for creating a snapshot of a story, complete with the current revision identifier, perhaps also a hash like git, and a short revision summary, for archival purposes and for circulation.

      8/ DOI specifier: each story and each revision should have a DOI specifier so it can be quoted in academic publication and ‘circulated’ among researchers and others

      9/ Long commit messages: Wikipedia supports 255 char commit messages, while git supports unlimited commit messages with the first line given priority. WT effectively supports about 50 chars. We need to be able to write longer commit messages in order to leave a better audit trail.

      10/ Donation via bank transfer: an IBAN banking gateway please for those of us lacking a credit card or a PayPal account and located in Europe and other participating countries.

      I apologize for all the feature requests. But a technical roadmap should be developed, in consultation with the WT community.

      with best wishes, Robbie

    2. Very important and interesting ideas which I will raise today and this is the direction of travel in terms of functionality. I think the source protection issue is fascinating and important.

      1. Hello Peter. As you might have guessed, I have a strong background in open source software development and more recently an interest in open data.

        My main message is, put simply, WT should track background information, public and protected, as well as published content. That means the use of full version control for all artifacts related to the story in question. Git meets journalism, if you like.

        One other feature request, if I may:

        11/ Embedded bibliographic metadata: each article should embed COinS (ContextObjects in Spans) bibliographic metadata within the HTML. This can then be read by citation harvesting programs like zotero. Again Wikipedia does this properly, but not, it seems, WordPress.

        What a fantastic project! With best wishes, Robbie

  16. I have been a fan of new media and especially journalism for a long time and I am interested in being a part of this effort. I think that one of the big areas to consider for inclusion is “crowdsourced” media. I have been toying with the idea for a while now because there is so much spontaneous coverage generated on the scene of events by people and their mobile devices. This is coverage that TV can never get because it cannot have a camera crew everywhere, all the time.

    I am especially intrigued by video content because it is the hardest to fake on the fly and uncovering the truth is what I think journalism is supposed to be about not putting a spin on everything to support a certain perspective. I thought it would be cool to develop a way to create a sort of widget that would pull in related video posts about a specific news item and refresh the results every time someone opened the page to add to the printed story.

    At this point I have tried embedding search results from several reasonable sites for video uploads with iframes but am not totally happy with the result. Anyone else think this is a worthwhile idea? Here is the link to a site I made to use this concept click on any story and look at the bottom of the page and you will see what I men. I haven’t gotten to where it works on mobile yet.

  17. Obtaining comment from negatively portrayed parties

    Journalism, as I understand it, involves soliciting comment from all sides. With trad journalism, this is straightforward: one has the weight of the news organization in the background when contacting affected parties for comment, particularly when the final story may well paint them in a negative light.

    WikiTribune is different. Volunteers have not have much authority, beyond the threat of publication.

    I just initiated an article, now live, titled: “Scholars seek open access in academic journal deal”. But I did not approach Elsevier, the main protagonist, for comment until after the story was published. I also noted the content of my email on the Talk page. (As it happens, Elsevier have yet to reply to me.)

    Is this good approach? Or should affected parties be contacted prior to submission for approval? With best wishes, Robbie

    1. The story should — from the start — have had a link to what is known of the Elsevier viewpoint. I have just added that from in order to ensure we have at least covered what is known to be their view. If you can also pursue it further and as it changes but you are right — when we portray someone critically we should try to reflect their point of view at the start and seek elaboration. With the WikiTribune method it is also true — and good that we can add to and enlarge on stories over time and increase the range of perspectives. But I do think that in this case part of the editing and approval process ought to have been: “what does Elsevier say”. Clearly easiest if the writer has done that first.

      1. Hello Peter. Noted. I will email Elsevier tomorrow with a reminder. They are probably not quite sure how to deal with the WT concept. New territory for everybody!

        1. Done. Copy of the email is on the associated talk page. I doubt if we get a reply, but let’s see.

  18. I had some questions interviews done by WikiTribune. After reading the interview with Snowden and Fathi it seems the approach has been one of just asking questions and not really challenging or fact checking anything that’s said. Is that the approach or policy that WikiTribune is going to take in the future or is the interview process more fluid?

    1. Interesting. Is there anything specific in either piece what you feel warranted fact-checking? What we have found so far – and it is evolving — is that the audience quite likes the Q&A format because they can see more or less exactly what the person was asked and how they responded. That format has a limited amount of parsing. No one should be able to get away in a Q&A with talking nonsense or lying without it being questioned. It is also more than open to you or other members of the audience to add to it, critique it or challenge it. Clearly it is not sensible to change the context or sense of a direct quote. We are generally trying to do interviews with people who are domain experts in their area. So, for example, our recent interview with Tim Berners-Lee is really about his views but given his status I think it is reasonable that it comes from his particular point of view. Does that make sense?

      1. All of this made sense to me.

        There wasn’t anything in either interviews that stuck out to me as incorrect but I’m also not well versed on either subjects at the moment. I was mainly asking because of the push back from Trump’s interview at the Times People were critical of Schmidt because he didn’t really question Trump on some of the things Trump said.

        Personally, I think an interview is about getting the most out of the interviewee and to keep them talking. I think WikiTribune being open to contributors like myself fact checking is the correct route to go, as opposed to being confrontational.

        I also like that WikiTribune has been interviewing subject matter experts.

        Thank you for providing clarity. Maybe an article explaining Q&A and the intent is in order? I know it seems like it’s common sense but I think setting up a guideline or policy for readers could be beneficial.

  19. Hi,

    I’m sure this has been brought up before but there seems to be an issue with changing your profile. I make changes, I receive an email saying changes were made but the profile does not change. When I go to edit it again, the changes show up on the edit page but the profile still has not changed.

    Thanks in advance for your help!

    1. Everything is moderated. The most likely explanation is that it’s pending approval.

        1. Mine is also pending review. I think the system is missing a notification system for such changes. Fiona?

          1. Thanks for reporting! It’s probably a caching issue. We are looking into it.

              1. There is one technical issue though. If I am *not* mistaken, the phone number field will only accept ints (geek for numbers) and not strings (geek for text). Hence a phone number like +48.031.1239567 in standard form is rejected. Can your developers change the datatype to string and then perform integrity checks on the input.

  20. Will my story on digital money will be published? I’ve spent a great deal of my free time writing for WikiTribune lately and I’d like to know.

    I also want to know if there will be a clear distinction between regular news and in-depth analysis. I ask because I don’t think it’s appropriate to demand editorials to be written in a brief and to-the-point style.

    1. Hi Miguel, it will – just going through edits right now. And I agree that editorials aren’t the same regular news. We have in-depth analysis pieces, but we also go with the rule that it’s better not to overstate. Hope that helps. Thank you for your time and contribution. It will be published soon.

    2. It has been published. Thank you very much. It is a learning experience for us all. We do not publish “editorials” in the traditional sense. Nor opinions. We have used Essay for your piece because it is written and length from a single point of view but with all its assertions well backed up with links and evidence. Thank you.

  21. Hello WikiTribune. Great to see the title launched and underway. I have only edited in a talk page so far. But a markup language would help, be it wiki (preferably with templates), markdown (preferable with a table extension), or even raw HTML (that would be desperation). And an edit button. Discourse ( has a number of nice features that WikiTribune might wish to emulate in due course. With best wishes, Robbie.

    1. Hello Robbie, thanks for your feedback.

      Every story has an Edit tab at the very top, and all registered members can edit stories, e.g.
      Not sure if you meant that a button would be more visible than a tab?

      Also, in the Editor you can either use a Visual mode or a Text mode, where HTML can be used.

      1. Hello Natalia. Many thanks. My comments relate to the Talk page. The box I am currently typing in. I haven’t tried yet on a live news page. Is there documentation on the range of HTML and CSS (including classes) that is supported? And what constitutes good markup practice? I am particularly interested in referencing published material in a comprehensive and searchable way (along the lines of Wikipedia citation templates although a site-integrated bibliographic database would be better). Also, is there a sandbox where we can experiment without messing up real news (similar perhaps to That said, I am sure that WikiTribune has rather long todo list. With best wishes. Robbie.

  22. Hello, from a recent conversation I gather that WT now has a staff of 13 journalists, most located in the UK. As an active WT community contributor, I would like to know
    – How many community members have contributed stories (not remarks or suggestions in Talk, but complete articles)?
    – What has been the extent of staff involvment in correcting or improving articles by community members: light edits, links, major editing?
    – Am I the only WT member who considers that active community contributors should have a set of additional tools at their disposal, such as a clear online identity, a title depending on experience and seniority (guest editor, editor at large, reporter), a visiting card, and some expenses met by WT when justified (paywall access to articles in FT, NYTimes, etc; registration fees to symposiums)?

    I would not be asking these questions if I did not consider that collaborative journalism has a future, and that WT can be one of its leading proponents. Thanks.

    1. You know more than most given our recent discussions.

      We have about a dozen people, only a handful of them full-time staff members. Most are in London but we now have a full-time person in New York.

      They are supported — as you know — by freelance editors who have been selected to work with us and to help manage the steadily increasing flow of contributions from WikiTribune contributors such as you. Those editors are in the UK, Ireland, the US, South East Asia and New Zealand (12-hours ahead of London, to give us reach and almost around the clock coverage).

      There are also a handful of community editors who can publish and of course I am sure you realise that any community member is welcome to EDIT any work in DRAFT and post it to PENDING for final publication by an approved EDITOR — be that a staff member, one of our freelance editors or a community editor. Legal and quality requirements mean we are currently cautious on that final “publish” stage.

      We merge the stories of staff and contributors in line with the founders’ objectives to ensure that staff and community members are treated as equal partners. It is true so far that by total numbers of stories the vast proportion of the stories published so far (368 as I write) are from staff members.

      The idea is that the staff reporting acts as an initial catalyst to conversation and to the contributors to come in. One measure of success would be that over time the out of staff is vastly outnumbered by stories created and published by community members.

      Staff — particularly the freelance editors — spend a significant amount of their day editing and improving and publishing the contributions of contributors. They generally edit for language, accuracy, focus (getting a journalistic point to stories) and to try to ensure we avoid plagiarism, poor English or straying into opinion. Some of the stories are very time consuming in either interaction with the author or seeking facts or rewriting or checking sources. Some work takes many hours to get into a state where the team member may feel the work is of sufficient quality. But the idea is to “triage” the incoming work and get it to a point where it can be published and hopefully improved and enlarged on by the community.

      I very much hope that as this process matures more members of the community will engage in both the creation of stories from the start and in the editing and steady improvement of work over time.

      I think you already have some answers on the last questions. The question of identities and profiles and how staff, freelancers and community members are seen is evolving but the principle is that as far as possible they are treated the same.

      Thank you, as always.

  23. The article on Alternet (, although potentially interesting, comes across as advertising, because the author seems so close to the project. I wonder whether this kind of article undermines the credibility of WikiTribune.

    Should this really have been accepted? If the subject were to be covered, should it perhaps have been written by someone who could take a more detached, disinterested approach?

    1. For the record, I had to write the story myself because the reporter supposed to knock on my door to interview me about Alternet never showed up.

    2. In its current version, the article should not have been accepted. The author should state from the very beginning that the Alternet is his project. No hard feelings Miguel (especially since I like your ideas), but this has to be rewritten as a personal account.

      1. The first part of the article is an introduction to our zeitgeist. As soon as I begin to talk about my own project, I make it clear that I’m the author. News is just three things: new, true and in the public interest. If you think reporting on my own stuff is a violation to any of the previous principles, explain how. “Show, don’t tell”.

        1. Someone reporting on themselves gives them incentive to not accurately report things that could potentially make them look bad. It’s why newspapers don’t just hire Donald Trump to write news articles about himself. It’s a conflict of interest and opens the door for accusations of bias so, potentially, the story turns into questions about the authors intent as opposed to the story itself.

          1. I’m pretty sure Rousseau’s Confessions contradicts your point.

            1. I’m just pointing out the potential issues behind reporting on yourself or on a project that is close to you.

              It calls into question a person objectivity and leads to discussions like this.

              1. I agree with you but apparently we are in the minority: the article has already been approved for publication…

    3. I agree with you but apparently we are in the minority: the article has already been approved for publication…

  24. Who’s the programmer around here? The code for the editor needs polishing. It keeps adding useless SPAN tags and ” style=”font-family: inherit; font-size: 1.6rem;”
    parameters to everything (A, STRONG, EM, etc.).

    1. Hi Miguel, I think this is likely because some copy was pasted in from Word, or a similar Word processor, we try and balance as much as possible the ease of use of the WSYWIG without being too restrictive in a user’s workflow. So for example to make it possible to easy paste in bold copy, links and other typographical elements we have to be a little more permissive, unfortunately this can also have the side-effect of bringing over other HTML elements, such as span tags and inline styling. I understand completely where you are coming from and have personally spent many hours over the years cleaning up code mangled by MS Word in the editor. However if we are stricter on removing elements such as these we are just as likely to remove valid formatting including links, headings and other structural elements, essential to the article. We will absolutely look into what we might be able to do on this however, there might be way of stripping out span tags and inline CSS without affecting more valid elements.

  25. I was going to change the wording in the article “Current Affairs Apple apologizes to consumers for iPhone slow down; Trump says China provides oil to North Korea”. There is an obvious error where it says “President Donald J. Trump tweeted that China was “caught red-handed” in importing fuel to North Korea”. “in importing” should read “exporting”. However when I go to the edit page it has already been changed. What exactly does this mean? It has been changed but not yet published? It is awaiting approval? I think it is very confusing if you are going to let people edit amended articles which have not yet been published. Or is this on purpose, part of the collaborative process. I’m not sure what the logic is behind this.

    1. The system is still very crude.

      I’ve been struggling with dirty HTML code myself, with inexistent timezone concept and the associated uncertainty as if my progress is being saved or not. I wrote a couple of articles already and I sent both to review prematurely because there is no simple manual “save progress” button.

      1. Hi Miguel,

        Thanks for your feedback. Could you clarify regarding the “inexistent timezone concept”?

        All work in progress is saved every few seconds. You can also save your story as draft and come back later. Hope this helps!

        1. I suppose the time-stamp is London’s time, but I live in Mexico (GMT-6). By selecting my time zone, the time-stamp would adjust to reflect the local time.

    2. Hi John,

      The way it currently works, all changes to stories require editorial approval. However, if you changed a story and somebody else also wants to make a change to the same story before WT’s editor approved your change, that second person will be working with your revision.

      This is more or less how Wikipedia works. There are pros and cons of this approach. The main benefit is that everyone can edit without being blocked by the editorial team’s approval and without creating 20 versions of the same story that somebody would have to merge).

      Hope this helps. If you have suggestions on how to make this process more transparent / less confusing, do let us know. Thanks!

  26. I’d like to see a clear and prominent visual distinction between opinion pieces and news reporting. From what I can tell, pieces categorized as “Essay” or “Analysis“ tend to be more subjective, expressing the author’s opinion or interpretation of facts. This is a valid type of journalism— though hopefully the opinions are still “evidence based”— but it should be immediately apparent to the reader that this is the intention. Could be a visual treatment, or a “opinions expressed are not necessarily the views of WT“ type disclaimer, or an editorial section — but something that clearly indicates when an article is NOT claiming to simply report “the facts”.

    1. Thanks. We’ll look at a disclaimer. We created the Essay type for pieces where someone has clear expertise in a given subject but is representing that knowledge from a single point of view. It should not, however, stray into opinion or commentary that cannot be attributed or justified but that may be subjective. We are not at this point proposing to run opinion or commentary.

  27. I really love RSS to simplify my internet reading life. Please consider implementing it.

    1. Hey Barry – we do have RSS feed capabilities but these aren’t very well telegraphed at the moment, which is an improvement that needs doing.

      You can get all stories with the url –

      If you want a category (like tech) it’s the url –

      It’s on the list!

      1. This is excellent news. However, the two urls that you provide do not seem to work. But, just knowing of their existence helped. When I used Feedly (my RSS reader) to search for “WikiTribune”, two feed came up. I added both feeds and look forward to reading my WikiTribune articles via RSS.


  28. I find news about current affairs and what it might mean for future events very important but what I also find very important, which there are nothing of here unfortunately is the lack of news coverage of our past. New findings and discoveries of our history. I would love to read news of recent discoveries in the field of archaeology, paleontology, geology and Historiography. I think it is imperative that we know as much about the past as the present.

    As the saying goes, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” – George Santayana 1863-1952.

      1. I have written a few “articles” for a Facebook page called Archeomaps, mainly about the more obscure and mysterious archeological sites around the world. Which is about the extent of my journalistic skills, Facebook posts. Though I might give it a try.

        1. * Make quality your brand and you should be fine.
          * It’s up to you to make a topic interesting.
          * Keep it brief (it’s a news story, not a book).
          * Ask for help; don’t try to do everything yourself.
          * If you seek help, explain other people clearly what you expect from them.
          * Always show appreciation for other people’s contributions. They owe you nothing.
          * Don’t get possessive of your article; if someone changes it and you don’t like the change, first ask yourself if it’s really a big deal (most of the time it isn’t).
          * It’s rude to ask people for help and get them to spend their time on you only to see their effort dismissed. You make them feel that their time was wasted.
          * If it’s really a big deal, talk to them to see if you can reach an agreement.
          * Work with a team mindset; like an orchestra, the goal is to produce together a beautiful song; not to show off your individual skill as a musician.

  29. Have you looked into getting funding from the Pulitzer Center for Crisis Reporting? Or being an approved place for reporters they are funding to publish in?

  30. A few usability things, sorry if they have already been mentioned:

    1. When logging in, the user should be redirected to the page/article that they were on when they clicked “Log In”.
    2. I would benefit from an easy way to jump back to the homepage after reading an article ,especially on mobile. Usually, after arriving at an article by clicking an email link, I have to manually scroll back to the top of the page on mobile to find the title logo. Maybe keep the title logo in the top navbar?

    1. Thanks Justin,

      1 – do you mean logging in from the Talk page? If yes, this should be sorted next week.

      2 – makes sense, thanks for your feedback!

      1. For #1, I mean just on any article page. Try going to any article while not logged in, then click “Sign in/Join” in the top right. When you finish logging in, you’ll be redirected to the homepage, not the article you were reading. Though you’re right that this happens on the Talk page too.

        On the other side of things, I just noticed how the link in the email that notified me of your comment autoscrolled me to the comment on the talk page, which was awesome 🙂

  31. A very basic and convenient method to display data is using tables, yet inserting tables to WikiTribune is far from easy.

    Furthermore, if it was up to me to decide, I would require at least one comparison table or info table to approve an article for publishing.

  32. Did all old comments in effect disappear? Because of a navigation bug :- / ?
    If I click pages 1,2,3,4 below, I’m redirected to some completely different page, rather than seeing comments page 1/2/3/4.

    1. Thanks for reporting,`KajMagnus. There is an issue with pagination and links in comment notifications. All comments will reappear once it is fixed.

  33. This is a reply to a comment about licensing. I suggesting asking people to dual license their contributions to which they have copyright, under CC-By 3.0 and 4.0, and got a reply that believed that that would somehow be incompatible with Wikipedia which uses CC-By 3.0 … However, because of some navigation bug, my comment and the reply apparently cannot be accessed any longer.

    So here follows my reply to the reply that believes that dual-licensing is incompatible:

    Thanks for the reply.

    Actually, that sounds like a misunderstanding. Asking people to dual license their contributions to Wikitribune under 3.0 and 4.0 is not incompatible with Wikipedia or anything else. It’s rather *more* compatible with Wikipedia and its future change-to-CC-4.0 plans. If you (Wikitribune) ask people dual license licensed their Wikitribune contributions to you under both 3.0 and 4.0, then it’ll be simpler for you to later on change the outbound license to 4.0. You can choose between 3.0 and 4.0, instead of (like WT is doing now) locking all content being created now, to 3.0.

    When people dual license their contributions to you under both 3.0 and 4.0, you get *more* permissions letting you do *more* things.

    (This was about the way peole license their contributions to you (inbound license), which could be dual-licensed under CC-By 3 and 4. Not about the way in which you license the WT content to others (outbound license) — which could be CC-By 3 only for now.)

  34. I am developing a style sheet from my editing here–that means I am keeping a record of my research through the recommended style guides on a particular word or issue. It makes it easier to find a specific recommendation in future.

    When I have got more in it, I will post it on the style guide page for others to correct or add to it.

Subscribe to our newsletter to receive news, alerts and updates

Support Us

Why this is important and why you should care about facts, journalism and democracy

WikiTribune Open menu Close Search Like Previous page Next page Open menu Close menu Share on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Instagram Follow us on Youtube Connect with us on Linkedin Email us Message us on Facebook Messenger Save for Later