Wikinews:Water cooler/policy

Page last updated: Saturday 09 at 2306 UTC.

Update of license

Latest comment: 8 months ago67 comments11 people in discussion

This conversation has been marked for the community's attention. Please remove the {{flag}} when the discussion is complete or no longer important.

Some time ago there was a discussion on meta about how to implement the license update to CC BY-SA 4.0 on all wikis. See m:Meta:Babel/Archives/2023-06#Aftermath_of_ToU_updates.

Wikinews use the license CC BY 2.5. So it does not have the SA part and it is an older version.

I would like to ask why Wikinews does not follow WMF and most other wiki projects. Is there a good reason or is it simply because noone thought about updating the license?

Unless there is a good reason I suggest to update the license to follow WMF. --MGA73 (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

The goal was that Wikinews would be easy to share. That hasn't really happened, but that's the idea. :/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, that makes sense because CC BY is less restrictive than CC BY-SA. However with the update of the Terms of Use users agree to license their contributions as CC BY-SA 4.0. So I think that at least all new content should be licensed under that license because I do not think that it is possible just to remove the "SA".

If the license do not make it easier to share then I do not think there are any good arguments to keep the less restrictive license for older text. Anyway if someone have allready legally shared the text they can continue to do so even if the license is changed so it should not give any problems to change license for older text too. --MGA73 (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

But, "The only exception [to using CC BY-SA 4.0 or GFDL] is if the Project edition or feature requires a different license. In that case, you agree to license any text you contribute under the particular license prescribed by the Project edition or the feature." I'm struggling to see why we would voluntarily take on that load of work...to make it harder for people to reuse our content, as we want them to. Heavy Water (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Beause the mission of the wiki-family is to make knowledge free for everyone and make sure knowledge stays free. Wikipedia uses CC BY-SA 4.0 and that does not seems to be a problem. Wikipedia have grown and is one of the worlds most used websites.

One of the exceptions I know of is wikidata where the data is CC0. Then there is also fair use in some cases but that is not valid for wikimedians to use on own work only for work created by other. I do not know of any other exceptions and reasons.

I wonder if there are any known examples where someone said they would no re-use wikinews if the license was BY-SA instead of BY. Anyone have examples? --MGA73 (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Very unlikely, as Wikinews is very obscure. There have been times about 15 years ago when I saw Wikinews reproduced in the wild, but it's not common today, for sure. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

To me that sounds like there is no longer any real problem using BY-SA. Another question not yet discussed is why use 2.5 instead of 4.0. --MGA73 (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. I don't see any reason for us to use a different license than the other WMF projects and would support a change. I don't feel strongly enough that I would oppose the status quo, tho. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
So how to move forward? Should there be a formal vote? --MGA73 (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I vote yes to a vote. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you User:Koavf. I'm not very familiar with wikinews so I'm not sure how to do this. But I think I have to go to Wikinews:Polls and add a link to Wikinews:Update license poll and then make a suggestion at that page. Is that correct? If you would like to assist you are very welcome to make the proposal. --MGA73 (talk) 12:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think just posting here would be sufficient, because as you can see, that page hasn't been edited in almost 15 years: https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Polls&action=history —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

User:Koavf, Okay I have prepared the poll below. I will add {{poll}} soon but perhaps you could have a look at it first? Is anything missing? --MGA73 (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Not from my perspective. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is an open poll listed on the Water cooler and Wikinews:Polls. Please remove the {{poll}} flag when the poll closes.

Please discuss your poll ideas with the community before polling, and don't vote on everything as voting is evil.

Wikinews should follow the official license in wmf:Policy:Terms_of_Use (currently cc-by-sa-4.0)

Weak support It makes sense to be consistent and these terms on CC licenses have really improved and clarified them from v. 2.5 to today. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Weak support I can see the limitations of ShareAlike, but I think greater interoperability with other wiki projects is more important. As said above, the modern Creative Commons licenses are much better than the pretty ancient version we're currently using. Ash Thawley (talk) (calendar) 05:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikinews should keep the current license (cc-by-2.5)

keep the current license - a few of our articles got translated into other languages, and if we would be the only WN project to make the switch, that would kill the translation process. CC licenses are, as far as I know, forward-compatible (a translation of a 2.5 article could be published under 4.0), but not backwards-compatible (a translation of a 4.0 article could not be published under 2.5). (Sidenote: English is usually a source language on WN, but not the other way around because of en.wn's review process and its requirement to check all sources.) As Justin have said, our work had not been reused much lately, but SA would make that even harder. I would be happy to reconsider to transition from CC.BY 2.5 to CC-BY 4.0, if the vote would be simultaneous on all WN projects. - Xbspiro (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

And I would advocate for using a separate license for spoken articles. I have raised that issue a while back during a Community Feedback period, but did not attract much attention. - Xbspiro (talk) 12:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC) Reply

I said above, "I'm struggling to see why we would voluntarily take on that load of work [of migration]...to make it harder for people to reuse our content, as we want them to." Experienced Wikinewsies have repeatedly, over the years, defended the greater freedom offered by not imposing the SA restriction. Xbspiro makes a good point about translation, too. (I really don't care what license non-Wikinews projects use.) I'd welcome a discussion to study the idea of migration to CC BY 4.0. Heavy Water (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I agree with your suggestion of 'studying the idea of migration.' One of things I'd like to better-understand before casting a vote is what can we glean from existing data, in order to understand the scope of any migration. Based on Xbspiro's point above regarding English as a source language, I've tried looking at Wikidata to see if any useful data can be had there. There may be better/existing ways to look at this data and I'm all ears if anyone can provide exmaples. Otherwise, I've started this page: Michael.C.Wright/TranslationAnalysis. Any and all thoughts are welcome. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 18:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is obvious that WMF is clueless about Wikinews, they barely have an idea about how Wikipedia functions. Using a more restrictive license, as all SA CC licenses are, makes any usage of Wikinews information more challenging. --Base (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

New option: Wikinews should keep the BY but update to newest version (currently cc-by-4-0)

I support an upgrade to 4.0. As I mentioned below using two different licenses for various content; SA for internal tools, scripts, templates, etc and non-SA for article content might be a good compromise that allows us to duplicate Wikipedia tools, scripts, templates, etc. Otherwise, if we are limited to only one, I agree with Heavy Water that the least-restrictive option is the best. We also need to ensure that the other language projects upgrade to a compatible license to allow for translations. The number of English articles that get translated is significant.[1] Previously unsigned comment by Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 20:50, 24 February 2024‎ (UTC)[2]Reply

Comments

"And I would advocate for using a separate license for spoken articles."
Why is this, Xbspiro? And which license? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for asking. The possibility of voice sampling bothers me a lot - CC licenses simply do not forbid that, but I can't name any licenses which would make me happy in this regard. Call me naïve, because a license will not keep bad actors back, but imagine a court proceeding where the sampler could argue that you have allowed your voice to be used for whatever purposes. Please, feel free to tell me, if you think this is not a valid point - even that would be better than no feedback at all. - Xbspiro (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
As long as it is a legal purpose then I think it would be hard to avoid. However the license require that reuser should "indicate if changes were made" so it would be clear that the voice was sampled to say something else. If the license is BY-SA then whatever they use it for should also be license BY-SA (which you think makes reuse harder). --MGA73 (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
"if we would be the only WN project to make the switch". (Xbspiro)

I have made notes on some of the other WN projects too about license update. I can make a notice on all projects so all projects follow the latest license. --MGA73 (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

All notified. At least those not closed. --MGA73 (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the notification. We can proceed with a simultaneous transition in all languages for the entire project, ensuring consistency and applying the upgraded license uniformly across all language communities. Kitabc12345 (talk) 10:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Is this a straw poll? The poll system was only used, as far as I know, very early in en.wn's existence. I don't think it is consistent with modern project principles whereby decisions are reached by consensus rather than simple voting — experienced Wikinewsies' votes are given more weight (or others' aren't counted), because they have knowledge of the project and an accumulated reputation. Separately, I'm concerned about the "Yes" section title; I think it may mislead folks who haven't read the discussion above that precipitated this into thinking the Terms of Use require or at all encourage projects to use CC BY-SA 4.0. I'm not seeing either in the Terms of Use. How about "Yes, Wikinews should follow the typical license for Wikimedia projects, as defined by wmf:Policy:Terms_of_Use (currently cc-by-sa-4.0)"? The "No" section title would also read better with "should" before "keep". Heavy Water (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

A vote is one way to find out if there is concensus or not. If 8 says yes and 2 says no then there is concensus. It would be a problem if the votes are 6 against 5 but if 6 prefer to change and 5 does not is it still not better to go with what most users prefer?

As for wmf:Policy:Terms_of_Use#7._Licensing_of_Content it says "When you submit text to which you hold the copyright, you agree to license it under: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License ("CC BY-SA 4.0"), ..." How can you read it any other way than CC BY-SA 4.0 is the preferred license?

As for the wording "should" I'm not a native English speaker so I do not see how it makes a difference if the word "should" is included or not. But if it is correct to write "Yes, Wikinews should..." and "No, Wikinews should..." then I do not mind.

As I understand your comment perhaps there should be one more option like "Update to CC BY 4.0" (not sure how that would fit in Yes/No). Do you have a suggestion? --MGA73 (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I asked on wmf:Policy_talk:Terms_of_Use#Does_ToU_require_that_Wikiprojects_update_license? and it was stated that ToU does not force a project to change license. --MGA73 (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, a vote can find out if there's consensus. But, for the example you gave, at en.wn it might vary based on who the users were, even if it was an 8–2 vote.

I figured that was what the ToU meant. Heavy Water (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I learnt about this discussion from the Water Cooler on Chinese Wikinews. The Chinese Wikinews community has discussed on the same matter a few months ago. Xbspiro's concern above is also one of the concern raised in our discussion. The Chinese Wikinews community generally supports to update the licence to CC-BY-SA 4.0 on condition that other Wikinews languages also follow as this enables translation and utilisation of contents from other Wikimedia projects. It seems not making much sense if only one or two Wikinews language editions update the licence while the others remain at CC-BY. --Waihorace (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Could somebody explain the benefits of switching 2.5 two 4 except the poor fact, that 4 > 2.5? --A1 (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

A1 sadly no. But I can give it a try based on the links in https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License_Versions#License_Versioning_History under "Explanation of changes from prior version".

3.0 fixed some issues related to TPM / encryption and compability with MIT-licenses etc. Not sure how relevant that is for Wikinews.

But Internationalization seems more relevant as the new version "utilize the language of the international intellectual property treaties, in place of the language of US copyright law". Also there is a better coverage for Moral Rights.

BY-SA is more compatible with other licenses now.

4.0 is said to be even more global.

It should also be better to handle "Rights outside the scope of copyright".

It implement a "Common-sense attribution" that is better suited to reflect accepted practices (for example using a link) and also a "30-day window to correct license violations". It makes it harder for those that uses a tiny mistake to sue someone for copyright violation.

It also claims to have "Increased readability".

If anyone have a better reason you are very welcome to share it. --MGA73 (talk) 10:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Comment I reworded the options as suggested and added a new option. I hope it is more clear now. Those that have allready woted are of courese welcome to move the vote if they prefer another option. --MGA73 (talk) 10:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I support this. Updates are necessary because many new projects are now released in version 4.0. However, with Wikinews still on version 2.5, it becomes difficult to publish content from version 4.0 on the older version, causing some inconvenience to the Chinese wikinews community. Kitabc12345 (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Kitabc12345 As I understand it the Chinese Wikinews will change to 4.0 if English Wikinews does. My guess is that other language versions would also be willing to change too. --MGA73 (talk) 09:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Basically, only English, Russian, French, Japanese, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Spanish, Chinese, German, Czech, Dutch, Swedish, Arabic, Serbian, Hebrew, and Esperanto are active communities. We have found that many news media outlets, although they publish under a free license, use the newer CC-BY-4.0 version, while our website operates on the older CC-BY-2.5 version. Consequently, we are unable to replicate their textual content under the newer CC-BY-4.0 license on our older CC-BY-2.5 website. Therefore, I am recommended to upgrade our license to the CC-BY-4.0 version. I agree to support the simultaneous upgrade to CC-BY-4.0 for other language versions, including the Chinese community. Insufficient local technical support personnel often lead us to rely on copying various Wiki templates, including countdown templates, from Wikipedia. We currently lack the knowledge and ability to create these templates independently without duplicating content from Wikipedia. Consequently, we are considering upgrading our license to align with other projects. However, this presents a significant dilemma as we frequently come across content that would be more beneficial to reproduce directly. However, Personally, I strongly support the direct upgrade of WikiNews' license to an independent one CC BY 4.0, not SA. This would preserve its distinct identity as a platform for original news content and prevent its assimilation with Wikipedia. Kitabc12345 (talk) 10:18, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
It seems that only we participate in this vote... What should we do to make this project improve the copyright in this 4.0 agreement, because there is a practical need. Kitabc12345 (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Is there no consensus? Or is the discussion not active?… Kitabc12345 (talk) 13:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
So far only 4 users voted above. 3 thinks we should not upgrade to cc-by-sa-4.0. 1 would probably be willing to upgrade to cc-by-4.0 but it is not clear if the 2 others would accept cc-by-4.0. It would make things more clear if Xbspiro and Base would like to comment on the option to upgrade to cc-by-4.0 (but skip the SA).

Some from other language versions would like to make sure that all language versions use the same version so they would only like to upgrade if it is a joined upgrade. Personally I think an upgrade is a good idea but I'm not really active except for trying to clean up files so I have not put a vote. --MGA73 (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I hope everyone will be active in the discussion. Kitabc12345 (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

However, Personally, I strongly support the direct upgrade of WikiNews' license to an independent one CC BY 4.0, not SA. This would preserve its distinct identity as a platform for original news content and prevent its assimilation with Wikipedia.

@Kitabc12345, I would like to hear more about this. What do you mean by 'assimilate?'

Wikipedia already performs a form of news service. Case in point: 2024 Kansas City Parade Shooting. Because of Wikipedia's editing process i.e., no review process, they can be more nimble and reactive than Wikinews. I'm not saying that is better—it's just the reality. In that way, I see Wikipedia already exceeding the abilities of Wikinews in providing timely and relevant news to readers (accuracy and bias notwithstanding). Based on that, I don't see a reason for Wikipedians to want to assimilate Wikinews. They already replace its news-providing function for their readers.

Aside from that, how does Wikinews not implementing a ShareAlike (SA) provision protect it from assimilation by Wikipedia?

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 17:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Suppose we are Wikinews; if the content of Wikinews were the same as Wikipedia's, would it still retain any unique characteristics? Kitabc12345 (talk) 08:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

In the Chinese Wikinews community, some new users tend to directly republish articles from Wikipedia, which is inappropriate and leads to a loss of uniqueness for Wikinews. Due to differing copyright licenses, replicating content from Wikipedia on Wikinews is a violation of copyright, and such behavior is immediately prevented. Furthermore, Wikinews is subjected to a review process that typically ensures greater accuracy than Wikipedia. By this, I mean that while Creative Commons Share-Alike (CC-SA) might technically aid Wikinews in copying certain templates from Wikipedia and the like, it's not advisable for Wikinews to repurpose Wikipedia's content. Wikinews is capable of independently developing its own distinctive content over the years, thereby establishing a clear distinction from Wikipedia. If readers cannot obtain information on our Wikinews website that is not written on Wikipedia, then it is almost meaningless and devoid of any news value or relevance to the purpose of the Wikinews project. Kitabc12345 (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your point is that by incorporating the SA provision, Wikinews would enable content duplication from Wikipedia. And that would eventually lead to Wikinews being assimilated by the larger Wikipedia because it essentially becomes the same content. It's an interesting point and an unintended consequence that warrants concern. There are though a number of key differences between the two platforms that are largely incompatible. For example, WP:AGF vs WN:Never_assume or WP:SYNTH vs WN:SYNTH. I would hope that those subtle and not-so-subtle differences would maintain a unique culture between the two that protects against assimilation.

I also think it is important for Wikinews to be able to generate and maintain the backend of the platform, i.e., the tools, scripts, templates, etc. In its current state, I don't see that en.Wikinews has the resources for that. The ability to adapt, remix, and transform those tools from Wikipedia might help with that problem.

For me, an important question to answer is: Can we utilize one or even two different licenses in a way that allow us to both discourage article content duplication across the various sister platforms while allowing for simple translations and also facilitating sharing of tools, scripts, templates, etc.? That may be an effective compromise and would allow us to move forward with an upgrade.

I posed the same question below (trying to keep track of multiple, similar, discussion threads).

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 15:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Question It has always annoyed me that Wikinews is not on the same license as our bigger sibling, Wikipedia. It has, among other things, had the effect of us having to rewrite simple tools, scripts, code for templates, etc. which have already been created on WP. Whenever I have suggested that is just stupid, I've been told, well, that's just the way it's always been. As I am not a lawyer, my question is, what happens to our archives if we change? Is 4.0 in any way less restrictive than 2.5? If yes, it seems to me that the writers of the past would have their rights infringed. If so, do we run a bot and put a notice of CC-BY-2.5 on all articles published before the date we implement the proposed change? (And keep in mind, there are a number of articles which have already been specifically tagged as PD, probably what we would call CC0-1.0 today. --SVTCobra 21:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think there is any harm in upgrading the agreement. There seems to be no problem between Wikipedia's upgrade from 3.0 to 4.0? All content is automatically upgraded, because we did not switch the copyright license to other restrictions, but only adopted the updated protocol. On the contrary, upgrading to 4.0 for news actually has great benefits because many free projects (other news agency website projects) have adopted the CC B Y4.0 guidelines. We can't copy the content of those free projects, which is quite annoying. Kitabc12345 (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am trying to remember, but was the SA part perhaps the reason Wikinews was different than Wikipedia in the first place? I don't know who set these things up in the way-way-back days. SVTCobra 20:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

In the comments above it is mostly the SA that some is against. So I think there is a chance for concensus to update to 4.0 without the SA. But it would be nice if those that woted against the update would clarify if they are against both the SA and the 4.0. --MGA73 (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think after upgrading to version 4.0, everyone will have the opportunity to strive for SA space. We can start by handling it this way first. Kitabc12345 (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with SVTCobra regarding the ability to copy tools, etc from Wikipedia. Wikinews does not have the resources necessary to correct even nit-noid issues such as template loops.

Question My understanding of the difference between SA and non-SA is that reproduced SA content must carry the SA terms forward. A question I have is; can CC-BY-4.0 content be reproduced with credit but fully protected? In other words, is CC-BY-4.0 a possible dead-end route for free material? If so, I would be more in favor of the SA restriction because it preserves free access to the information.

Lastly, an aside; I'm not saying this is a waste of time. However, I think our energy would be better used in figuring out how to improve the publication and reviewing process. I'm not sure that the version of copyright license currently in use is impacting that to a great extent (though I am open to being convinced otherwise). A lack of timely, relevant content is the antithesis of the project and what I think will be the eventual death of en.wikinews. The copyright version becomes irrelevant when there isn't material being copied.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 15:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not sure what you mean fully protected. But it is possible to use CC-BY-4.0 text in another text and have that new text copyrighted so that no one else can use the new text (for example a book). But the original text is still CC-BY-4.0 so it is always possible to go back and use the original text.

I agree that it is relevant to get new articles. Someone wrote earlier that some news sites use CC-BY-4.0 and because Wikinews uses an old version that prevent editors from using text from those news sites. So I would not say its a waste to upgrade to a newer version. --MGA73 (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@MGA73 Yes, copyrighted is what I meant by 'fully protected' and you answered my question. Thanks.

Question Regarding the statement 'our work has not been shared much recently,' do we have any stats on that? Wikimedia Stats can show things such as trends in articles read, but that doesn't indicate content copied or shared.

@Heavy Water makes a very good point we shouldn't take on extra work to make it more difficult to share our content. But I don't see that we know that BY-SA has or will hinder sharing (related to my question in this same reply). Do we even have enough committed admins/editors/users to undertake the upgrade project?

@Xbspiro makes another good point that it needs to be an all-or-nothing upgrade for various different Wikinews languges if en.wikinews is generally a 'source language' for others. Do we have any stats or data on how much en.wn content is a source for other languages?

For me, a vote would hinge on the following:

1. Do we have the manpower needed to proceed with the upgrade?

2. Do we have data on shared content?

3. Can and will the other languages follow suit?

As it currently stands, I may have time to volunteer to help with the upgrade, if needed.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 15:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Coincidentally, today I logged in to find that one of my articles pending review has been translated and published by fr.wikinews. I was pinged regarding the creation of a wikidata item. I checked all of my published articles and found 50% (7 of 14) had wikidata linking to other languages. And that number could be higher if other other editors don't ensure they link to existing wikidata. Maybe wikidata could give us better insight into how much English content is being used among other wikinews platforms. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 15:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Michael.C.Wright. I do not think it will take very long to update the relevant places from CC-BY-2.5 to CC-BY-4.0 or CC-BY-SA-4.0 if you know how to do it. Perhaps 1 hour? If other language versions want to change too then of course that will take some time too. --MGA73 (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Articles from English Wikinews are rarely translated into other languages. In fact, I find it uncommon to see numerous news reports that are sourced from English Wikinews—only a minor portion indeed. I do not agree with the claim that one's own language serves as the origin language. For example, some news reports on English Wikinews come from translations of articles from Russian Wikinews. However, I am in favor of other language editions of Wikinews upgrading to CC BY 4.0, in line with the English Wikinews. Kitabc12345 (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

(see picture)

Do we have someone who knows how to do it? There could be as many as 4,600 articles in en.wikinews[3] that exist as another language. Those licenses will need to align. Do we know how to identify all of those articles, contact someone on that language.wikinews and get the necessary changes made? Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 16:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Michael.C.Wright According to m:Terms_of_use/Creative_Commons_4.0/Legal_note#Mechanism_for_the_upgrade the way the WMF does it is that existing text stay under the old license and all new text is under the new license. So what should be changed is probably just the text you see on the bottom of each page saying:

All text created after September 25, 2005 available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License, unless otherwise specified. (Should there be the word "is" in "2005 is available"?)

If someone think it would perhaps also be possible to create a page somewhere that users can add their names to agree to relicense old text to the new version.

When editing there is a new text saying "Your work will be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License and will be attributed to "Wikinews"." and that should of course also be updated.

There can be other places that needs to be updated too but I do not think we have to edit or do anything to all the excisting articles. --MGA73 (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Based on your response here, specifically regarding the upgrade of new content while leaving existing content as-is, I am ready to vote in favor of an upgrade. However, I would like to better understand the ramifications of implementing an SA provision. I have asked two specific questions in two different contexts: 1) Not using SA to protect from assimilation with other projects and 2) Using both SA and non-SA in different aspects of Wikinews content and processes. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 17:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I do not believe that such behavior is beneficial for Wikinews. Offering the same information as Wikipedia is pointless; it lacks uniqueness and does not differentiate from Wikipedia. Kitabc12345 (talk) 08:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Many free-license news sites do not employ SA (ShareAlike) as their licensing clause. If other media are also required to change to SA to be able to use content from Wikinews, this could strike a blow to the freedom of the press, affecting the dissemination of information and undermining the public good. Kitabc12345 (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Question This question is related to User:SVTCobra's above (and I apologize if I'm breaking convention with the threading and {{question}} use. I am happy to reformat this entry to conform with norms).

It has always annoyed me that Wikinews is not on the same license as our bigger sibling, Wikipedia. It has, among other things, had the effect of us having to rewrite simple tools, scripts, code for templates, etc. which have already been created on WP.

Can we license tools, scripts, and code for templates different from article content? After all, the final, rendered product of a template for example, is not the template, but HTML formatting. Therefore a Wikinews article is not sharing any template. Based on this understanding, would it be an effective compromise to protect Wikinews articles with a less-restrictive CC-BY and internal tools, scripts, and templates with CC-BY-SA, in-line with Wikipedia?

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 17:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I concur with this viewpoint; this solution is very sound. Kitabc12345 (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sum up per march 2024

I have tried to sum up the wiews:

2 users (3 if you include me) think Wikinews should follow the same license as the other Wiki-projects (Justin and Ash Thawley).
5 users think that Wikinews should NOT change to BY-SA but stay with BY (Xbspiro, Heavy Water, Michael.C.Wright, Base and Kitabc12345)
1 user is against the update from 2.5 to 4.0 (Base)
4 users possibly 6 (or 7 if you include me) think Wikinews should (perhaps) upgrade to 4.0 (Michael.C.Wright said yes, Xbspiro and Kitabc12345 said yes if all WN update, Heavy Water said yes to study update, Justin and Ash Thawley said yes to 4.0 but also SA)

So does you agree that the result is "Yes, WN upgrade to CC-BY-4.0 if the the other WN also upgrade"?

If that is the result then next step is to find out if the other WN would also change license. That raises 2 questions:

How do we find out if WN update - is it a vote on meta or is it a post on every WN?
If it is a post on every WN should there be a yes on all WN or is it okay if one or a few smaller WN says no or ignore the post?

--MGA73 (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Editorials

Latest comment: 7 months ago30 comments7 people in discussion

Would Wikiversity consider allowing editorials? I mentioned this in one of my replies on an opinion page: Without at least some analysis, so much media (not necessarily here) amounts to propaganda laundering because it merely passes along what is said at press releases, by politicians, pundits, and so forth with the air of "objectivity". If Wikinews is an independent project there should be no problem with allowing for some critical viewpoints to counterbalance the distortions, half-truths, euphemisms and misrepresentation that come from so many official sources. AP295 (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

The perceived failure of WikiNews can be attributed to its restriction to news reporting alone, which, compared to other projects, leads to a significant loss of value. By limiting itself to content that is easily replaceable, WikiNews has experienced a substantial decrease in both brand value and user engagement, ultimately resulting in a loss of market share. In contrast, Wikivoyage allows users to contribute travel diaries, aligning with the idea that supports a more inclusive approach. By allowing community contributions and embracing a more diverse range of content, WikiNews has the potential to be revitalized and become a more outstanding media platform. Reintroducing the original Wiki proposal for this project, which was initially rooted in the idea of collaboration and synergy with blogging, could further support its revival. Kitabc12345 (talk) 01:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kitabc12345: Thanks. The problem is as I've stated. Speaking generally, news media has become a tool of the government and various corporate interests. It observes and reports upon them selectively, passing along information from sources that aren't impartial to begin with. "All the news that's fit to print." The rest? Well that's all just misinformation, allegedly. [4] I am glad you seem to agree with allowing editorials, they're sorely needed. My policy suggestions (and sometimes even my suggestions to follow policy) are often ill-received. We have every right to expect salience and truth, to demand it, and sometimes that comes in the form of an opinion rather than primary or secondary accounts of events that are choreographed in the first place. AP295 (talk) 04:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Due to editorial limitations, maintaining a neutral and collaborative approach becomes challenging for WikiNews in the long term. Establishing an independent media platform would provide greater freedom to express diverse opinions and foster public discourse? Despite potential opposition, I strongly believe this suggestion greatly benefits WikiNews' plans. It's important to note that including editorials does not necessarily contradict our policy of neutrality or that of the media industry, as they can also be presented in a neutral manner. Kitabc12345 (talk) 10:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

It does contradict neutrality, but there shouldn't be a policy of neutrality in the first place. In that context, "neutrality" is a debasement of "impartiality". I should have realized this sooner, it's a big one. "Fair" may even be a better word than "impartial" here. AP295 (talk) 11:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

But thanks, I realized something important. AP295 (talk) 11:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Wikinews has deemed editorials to be completely incompatible with our neutral point of view policy. Editorials are for better or worse, opinion pieces. Opinions can be very pointed when it comes to news. SVTCobra 16:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

The policy is what should be changed. Excluding editorial work is precisely the same as saying that there's no need for critical discourse or social critique. Large news organizations seem to retain this prerogative in various forms. Wikinews should as well. Isn't it rather unbecoming for wikinews to turn its nose up at editorial submissions when it's on its last legs, and at a time when independent editorialization is actually quite rare and becoming rarer? AP295 (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

This has been debated in the past. I understand where you are coming from. The other problem is that anybody can edit articles. If you submit an independent editorial, but another editor doesn't like your slant or 'take' on the subject, can they just change it? Can you then change it back? Can a third person add a different perspective? It is extremely difficult to have a collaborative editorial. Imagine the heated edit-wars which could result from an editorial about the current Israel–Hamas war. Who will be the arbiter of what is "independent" and "fair"?
To change the policy, a new policy specifically covering editorials would have to be formulated and gain a broad consensus. We barely have the active user-base to gain consensus on a simple deletion request. Also, it would be such a fundamental change to neutrality, we may need to seek WMF approval to implement it. SVTCobra 18:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Here are some of the past discussions. There may be others in the archives.

SVTCobra 18:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Why must an editorial be collaborative? This hardly seems like much an obstacle. Naturally the author of any given piece would have the final say on what goes into it. This is pretty much standard practice on Wikiversity. They call it a collaborative effort, and it is to some degree, but I'd never edit someone's resource (except perhaps to undo vandalism) without talking to them on the discussion page first. For the most part people stick to their own resources unless they're invited or given permission, with a few exceptions. The same general convention of proprietorship would apply to editorials as well. If someone disagrees with the opinion in an editorial, let them write and publish their own editorial instead of changing or censoring something that isn't theirs. Entirely reasonable, no? AP295 (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea what goes on at Wikiversity, but collaboration is at the heart of the entire Wiki-vision, no? I agree, it is difficult (if not impossible) to have collaborative editorials. I do not know what exactly you mean by "resources" in this context. Here's what Meta has about this project: m:Wikinews.
But do you envision any limits to what constitutes an editorial? Can someone opine that the Earth is flat? Should someone be allowed to argue that Russia's special military operation is indeed to eradicate Nazis in Ukraine? Surely, there must be some form of review before publishing.
I am all for a debate on this, but I currently see too many roadblocks. Cheers, SVTCobra 20:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

"I have no idea what goes on at Wikiversity" Hence my explanation, to which I'll add that "resource" is wikiversity's jargon for "article", for reasons perhaps best known to whoever decided on it. "collaboration is at the heart of the entire Wiki-vision" I don't see how this rhetorical statement precludes a basic convention of respect for other's work. Clearly it's a non-issue. If an author starts an editorial, one would ask their permission on the corresponding talk page if they want to contribute, otherwise one can write one's own editorial. "Surely, there must be some form of review before publishing." Yes, surely. Why is that a problem? AP295 (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

You haven't addressed some of my specific examples. How far can "independent" views go?
As far as the review process, if I review it, am I just checking spelling and grammar? Or am I agreeing it is 'fair'? Do we need a disclosure at the top of these editorials that they are the opinion of a particular editor?
I am trying to tell you that this is more of a Pandora's box than you realize. Hopefully, the flag will bring in some other people to comment on your suggestion. Cheers, SVTCobra 21:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

"How far can "independent" views go?" Isn't that the job of the reviewer? If a submission doesn't violate the UCoC, then the reviewer can use their own judgement, respecting that it's an editorial. Articles involving "flat earth" and other obvious falsehoods are not a difficult call. Wikinews already reviews articles. "Do we need a disclosure at the top of these editorials that they are the opinion of a particular editor?" Only if you don't think readers will know what "editorial" means. AP295 (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is the last I will say until others speak. Reviewers are not infallible and everyone has a POV. If I, as a reviewer, happen to be pro-Trump or pro-Biden, I might be inclined to allow editorials I agree with and fail others. (In truth, I hope I can be more objective than that.) But I hope you can see the problem. As far as "flat earth" is concerned, it may be an obvious falsehood to you and me, but others genuine believe it. And while that may be an extreme case of 'false vs true', there are other subjects where that gap narrows. SVTCobra 22:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I presume Wikinews reviewers are halfway competent and make a reasonable effort, though you seem doubtful. Perfection isn't necessary. None of these hypothetical issues stop other newspapers and websites, so it's absurd to say this won't work on wikinews until the policy has been tried. There's no question that independent editorials and critique are socially important. At present they're as endangered as they are valuable, and that's bad news. AP295 (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I said I wouldn't reply, but you got me. I do not know if you are based in the US or elsewhere. If you are familiar with US politics, you need not look any further than Fox News and MSNBC. One could consider their editorials 'fair' or 'radical propaganda', depending on one's viewpoint. Did you bother to look at the old discussions I listed? Have you heard the expression, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"? Maybe Wikiversity doesn't draw controversial topics like the news does. On Wikinews we have people questioning the bias of an obituary for John Paul II from 18 years ago. SVTCobra 23:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

"One could consider their editorials 'fair' or 'radical propaganda', depending on one's viewpoint." Yet they're still allowed to have their say, and on national TV no less. Shouldn't the rest of us? Political mass media in the USA is ersatz. I've written about it elsewhere and if you're interested I'll link it. I don't have time to read your links now, but if you really think I should I'll give them a look. "On Wikinews we have people questioning the bias of an obituary for John Paul II from 18 years ago." So what? AP295 (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Yet they're still allowed to have their say, and on national TV no less. Shouldn't the rest of us?" We do, don't we? You can post you views on Twitter (cough X), on Facebook, on Tumblr, or any other freely available site. Most of them indulge in opinionated views. "So what" you say, well, this was not even an editorial. You would have Wikinews join the maelstrom of biased op-eds? I don't disagree with you that it could increase engagement, but I wouldn't want to put any of this content on the main page except perhaps a link to an editorial section. SVTCobra 00:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
So much social media garbage is just that. The salient observations and comments that do exist are buried under marketing and PR propaganda. People are not likely to find good critique even if they try. High-quality social critique is underrepresented and grossly so. It has been for a long time, and wikinews can do something about it. Don't you trust your own reviewers to make good judgement calls? I just looked at your links and they're about what I expected. I've already addressed much of the opposing argument, if not all of it. In fact for some time now I've been accumulating material for an essay on why the word "opinion" should not be viewed with contempt, and who might stand to gain from loading it with negative connotations. Mass media need people to sneer at the very idea, because (regardless of partisan association) they largely exist to launder propaganda. Their reporting may be factual and largely free of editorial, but often they're simply the conduit by which so much humbug, propaganda and falsehoods told by others reach the public. In order for this swindle to work, the public must have a very low opinion of opinion itself, and they presumably set many contemptible examples, of course not in such a way that you'd attribute them to "the news", which must be thought of as factual and objective, or perhaps neutral. We are encouraged to consider opinion as the diametric opposite to fact. Yet there's no real reason to sneer at the very idea of opinion, less reason still to consider it inferior to the information mass media delivers. We must have editorials. AP295 (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

AP295, I urge you to consider this: You have no experience with en.wn, and thus no accumulated reputation on this, a project where never assuming makes accumulated reputation a cornerstone of project social interactions, insisting on a radical change to en.wn neutrality, and by extension en.wn as a whole. I'm not engaging in ad hominem; it's just that people who aren't experienced with the project have their opinions given less weight because their inexperience means they're both less likely to understand it and haven't accumulated a reputation yet. And to me it looks like you're providing more and more evidence to support the conclusion you don't understand how the project currently works.

To be fair, I'm not sure if you read anything on en.wn's NPOV beyond WN:NPOV, which Wikinewsies have recognized for at least more than a decade as an inaccurate representation of what NPOV really means here, more accurately described by WN:Neutrality (please note en.wn essays != en.wp essays in acceptance; much of widely-accepted en.wn convention isn't written, and some of what is isn't set in ~~stone tablets~~ policies or guidelines, but is written in essays).

Your response of "obvious falsehoods are not a difficult call [for the reviewer of the editorial]" to SVTCobra's question about limits seems absurdly naïve, as does your later statement "I presume Wikinews reviewers are halfway competent and make a reasonable effort" and thus can determine limits. Seriously? If you're going to make a proposal like this, you can't just make cavalier hand-wave statements effectively amounting to "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it" to a question about the fundamental viability of the proposal. In modern times, we're hardly ever mired in lengthy disputes over articles being "POV" largely because of the authority granted to the reviewer in evaluating an article — a mandate rooted in their upholding of Wikinews policies, unwritten practices, etc. In the system you envision that mandate would be uprooted in relation to editorials because the reviewer would be forced to make judgements based on their personal views about a topic instead of based on those conventions. It's worth noting all the discussions SVTCobra linked to were from long before the modern peer review system was introduced (around mid-2008 depending on how one defines it), during an era of self-publication.

"None of these hypothetical issues stop other newspapers and websites, so it's absurd to say this won't work on wikinews until the policy has been tried" — I call bullshit on the notion that it can't be obvious without a trial something other news outlets do isn't something we can. En.wn isn't any of those outlets and doesn't have the same conventions.

"Isn't it rather unbecoming for wikinews to turn its nose up at editorial submissions when it's on its last legs [...]?" Many people, including myself, when they're new to en.wn, have this assumption the project is dying or has never been very "successful" at all based on observing low project output as measured by article count per whatever unit of time. In short, while there have been periods in project history when there was more output than this, it's been at a similar level to this for a few years now. A steady egress of "many" (whatever that's defined as) articles is important, for sure, but so is quality, and we should never, in my opinion, feel pressured to make a radical change to the project or somehow loosen quality control just because we "aren't publishing enough articles". In fact, it is, or at least used to be a commonly-held belief on en.wn loosening standards based on the idea of leniency allowing for more output actually reduces output in the long run because the project loses some of the idealistic striving that incentivizes people to do the difficult volunteer tasks of contributing in the first place.

And please, the Wikiversity analogies are mostly irrelevant to en.wn. To risk stating the obvious, these are different projects with different social structures and very different missions. Heavy Water (talk) 07:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

When I read between the lines, the only concrete objection is that you doubt your reviewers can handle the task of reviewing editorials. I suppose you'd know better than I how capable they are. You gave them review privileges. Since you don't seem keen on the idea I'll take your reply to mean "no, we're not going to do that". It's your project so I cannot insist that you do anything and I will drop the issue if you want me to. That said, I think I've made a lay-down case in everything I've written so far that it's well worth it to permit some social and political critique along with the rest of the news, and that this should be a matter of course rather than considered a dubious "radical" measure. If someone makes this suggestion in the future, please cite this discussion as well. AP295 (talk) 11:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well, "I don't want to do that and I think it wouldn't be good for the project" was my intended message; I obviously neither can nor want to prevent others from making their own judgements. Heavy Water (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't think there is any harm in upgrading the agreement. There seems to be no problem between Wikipedia's upgrade from 3.0 to 4.0? All content is automatically upgraded, because we did not switch the copyright license to other restrictions, but only adopted the updated protocol. On the contrary, upgrading to 4.0 for news actually has great benefits because many free projects (other news agency website projects) have adopted the CC B Y4.0 guidelines. We can't copy the content of those free projects, which is quite annoying. Kitabc12345 (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry to publish it in the wrong place. If you want me to say something, I don't think the editorial can do it for the current system and practice of Wikinews. So it's not good either do that things for projects even now. Kitabc12345 (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@AP295 185.71.135.180 (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Editorials are... difficult. They aren't very compatible with Wikinews as a project and as an idea. I can't see how allowing editorials will bring anything good with this platform. Allowing editorials probably won't drive many more people to the site and they have a big risk of being misused. On top, it's difficult to review an editorial that you don't agree with. The current review process leaves no room for it. Ash Thawley (talk) (calendar) 05:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Asheiou: I can see that this is a non-starter, and it doesn't exactly surprise me. Yet there's no reason why an editorial cannot be objective and insightful. Neutrality and consensus are grossly overrated here and on most projects (though I understand their ostensible role in the editing process on other Wikis). Hitchens once wrote an amusing play on words, "the truth cannot lie, but if it could, it would lie somewhere in between." Most often it's the way the people interpret the news that's wrong. Editorials would allow genuine critique and discourse to occur. A few good editorials and a bunch of rubbish editorials would still be better than news that can only pass along what officials and pundits say. I see that it's not going to happen here, yet I object to the insinuation that opinion or critique is somehow a diametric opposite to "fact" or should be considered as simply a debasement of the information it's based upon. AP295 (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

There are some smart, even evocative words written in this discussion. However, a guiding principle at this project (however one wants to play Sushi chef with the term) is, Neutral Point of View. I always try to bring these discussions back to that. It is much like the concepts of 'random' and 'reliability' in research. On paper, those are very concrete things, but in practice, they are slippery little critters! NPOV can absolutely be the very same way. We report on DISCRETE NEWS EVENTS here... that is it, nothing more.--Bddpaux (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Marking articles stale

Latest comment: 7 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Can only reviewers mark articles awaiting review as stale? I don't see where that is explicitly stated in policy. If not, I could help at least reducing the list by marking abandoned articles as such and recommending Gatwicking. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 15:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, anyone can do that. That would be a great help. Heavy Water (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I know original reporting gets more leeway in the review system as far as when they're considered abandoned vs stale, etc. What is the general consensus on keeping them in the queue when we don't have enough active reviewers to work through it and the original review request date is significantly past? For example, the article titled Latin American expedition of Viktor Pinchuk: meeting with the traveler took place in Yalta was written and added to the queue in December and has not been edited in three weeks. The original editor has had similar articles on the same topic published (meaning it isn't merely a drive-by article). There are also notes in the Collaboration page, which also lends credibility.

In situations like that, should the OR articles remain in the queue for a reviewer to address? Or is there a rule-of-thumb that can be followed by non-reviewers to help manage the queue?

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 15:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

If memory serves, there is an 'official' answer to this question.... I just can't remember it/find it at present. In terms of OR, I'm just thrilled to see anyone doing good OR these days, and have been bending the rules SEVERELY in terms of freshness this week -- but we might need to dig into that a bit more. We just simply must maintain our focus: This is a news organization... and we need news.--Bddpaux (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good. I'll continue to leave OR in the queue and let a reviewer manage them until we get clarity on how to officially proceed. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 23:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is probably about 3 inches outside the bounds of 'policy', but.......

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

....it has been on mind for a long time. Some contributors (and it makes me laugh) will submit an 11-sentence article, that has 9 sources (and I'm not exaggerating).... What gives with that? Any ideas?--Bddpaux (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

When I overdo it with sources, it's partly out of a feeling of defensiveness—the need to defend every fact, else it get's removed by a reviewer. More than once I've been told to reduce the number of sources I list. I also like to share sources I've used, that have helped me understand a topic. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 23:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Policy regarding posts on opinions sections of published articles

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This post on the opinions tab of an article is relatively off-topic. Is there any policy regarding the "Opinions" tab of articles? The opinion was posted by an IP account and is the first and currently only post by the account. It smells like vandalism but it could be legit. Any thoughts or links to existing policy? Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 18:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete that garbage. This isn't an open forum for cranks to whine about nonsense. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply