All the News That's Fit to Post, Part 1: What is "In the News"?

The serene presentation of Wikipedia's front-page "In the news" section belies the messy truth behind the headlines: a never-ending newsroom argument about matters both serious and silly

Dec 20, 2023

Wikipedia has a complicated relationship with “the news”. Its content about contemporary topics is based in news reporting, and its editorial processes are a form of journalistic practice, yet Wikipedia policy clearly states that it is not itself a news-gathering organization.

Despite this, Wikipedia makes judgments about what is “fit to print” all the time. Most of these deliberations take place across Wikipedia’s millions of articles, involving one or maybe a few editors, with little attention paid. But there is another place on Wikipedia where this process is highly concentrated and hotly contested. This is “In the news”, also known as ITN: a collection of headlines linking to Wikipedia articles about topics currently in the headlines. ITN is one of the most prominent features on Wikipedia’s main page, which is the most-visited page on Wikipedia by far.

In newspaper terms, it’s on the front page, above the fold.

The origins of ITN

Wikipedia’s article traffic has always been very much driven by what’s in the news, a fact editors probably realized for the first time during the September 11 terrorist attacks, which is the exact day that Wikipedia editors first started posting articles about timely events to the main page. And like the news tickers endlessly sliding across the lower bound of TV news channels—which also trace their ubiquity to the 9/11 attacks—Wikipedia editors kept right on posting newsy items long after the initial shock wore off.

Even in its embryonic stage, a somewhat daffy, even slightly deranged, disagreement emerged. The very first comment on the original talk page proposed: “If we make an effort of adding relevant links to the Current events page,” and “create good articles for whatever that page is linking to, we will be able to get lots of traffic from the search engines.” The second comment ever scoffed: “Do we really need this ? This is an encyclopedia not a tabloid after all. The point about search engine search is questionable. It would be best to put some porn to attract audience to Wikipedia. Huh ?” Upon reply, the first brushed past this angle, and suggested: “One great advantage Wikipedia might have over other encyclopedias is our ability to have timely articles.”

It’s not quite right to say this exchange set the tone for what would follow in the next two decades, but it may be fair to say the nature of the ITN project revealed its proclivities early on. Having combed through many, many of these discussions while researching this article, and having developed considerable knowledge on the subject, I can say this much for sure: it’s always been a shitshow.

What, exactly, is ITN?

As a finished editorial product, ITN occupies a prominent position on Wikipedia’s main page. On the desktop, it occupies the top half of a light blue box along the top row of main page content, immediately to the left of the day’s “featured article”. On mobile it is the third box down, just below the “Did you know …” section. It’s the one with all the headlines:

ITN’s primary content consists of 4–6 short news blurbs, written in a calm and dispassionate present tense headline style, updated as consensus news occurs. Its subject matter runs strongly toward national elections and extra-democratic changes of power, major disasters, international awards, professional sports championships, and scientific discoveries. It usually shies away from most business news, sub-national politics, legislative outcomes, and “penultimate items” like nominations to a government post or criminal indictments (more on that one later). Celebrity gossip is virtually nonexistent, unless the celebrity is a “transformative” world leader who just died.

ITN’s headlines always surround a simple photograph, usually taken from one of the top-listed articles. Below that are two horizontal lists of links to articles sans accompanying context: “Ongoing”, for topics of continuing relevance (especially wars), and “Recent deaths”, commonly referred to as “RD”, listing notable passings from the last week.

And then below that, right-justified, is a link with the anchor text “Nominate an article”. This link goes to a page called “In the news/Candidates”, usually called ITNC. This is where, all but hidden in plain sight, in this buzzing all-hours virtual editorial room just one level down from the main page, ITN mainstays stop being polite, and start getting real.

Quick, subscribe to The Wikipedian before you forget!

What makes ITN such a battleground?

Unlike the rest of Wikipedia, with its myriad policies and detailed guidelines, theoretically ITN has just two basic criteria for which stories make its front page news blurbs: 1) the article itself is presentable, i.e. it doesn’t make Wikipedia look bad, plus it must have been recently updated, and 2) that the driving event is sufficiently newsworthy.

As to 1) the article’s recent update cannot be just one sentence, otherwise it will be rejected. Make it five legitimate sentences and you’re golden. The criteria is both noncommittal and self-aware enough to note, “when an article is updated enough is subjective”. Article quality is judged according to Wikipedia’s widely-accepted content standards: the article must be in good shape, with citations to reliable sources, no obvious defects, and especially no warning templates.

Quality itself is not usually controversial, though consensus about an article’s quality compared to its significance do not always match up. More often than you’d like to know, newsworthy articles that fall too far below Wikipedia’s content standards—and for whatever reason cannot be improved in a timely manner—never hit the front page.

But the greatest source of disagreement by far is 2) what makes news stories considered significant enough for inclusion. The only criteria other than simply being in the news is this “consensus”—a metaphysical state of broad agreement not necessarily coterminous with unanimity but having clear separation from debatable. Does consensus mean 75% agreement? 90%? You might as well ask how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. ITN’s own guidance all but recommends antagonism: “It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough, and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits.”

Sometimes this works out fine, like a recent blurb about the COP28 UN climate conference, posted with only minor dissent, or when the recently departed actor Andre Braugher was added to the RD list with only a few modest updates. But all too frequently it does not. ITN’s ad hoc editorial board, like the rest of Wikipedia, depends entirely on who decides to show up and participate, along with the vastly different perspectives they bring with them: informed by which country they grew up in, which generation they belong to, their differing cultural backgrounds, and even personal interests.

Today’s installment is the first in a series that will continue in January 2024. In the weeks to come, we’ll survey some of ITN’s longest-standing controversies, try to arrive at something like a conclusion about what unites them all, and ask whether it can be any better than it is now.

This series will also cover: accusations of U.S. bias, counter-accusations of British bias, the Super Bowl, “recurring items”, The Boat Race, March Madness and NCAA basketball, the college football championship game, mass shootings in the U.S., WP:MINIMUMDEATHS, “recent deaths”, and the indictments of Donald Trump.

I look forward to seeing you there.

One last chance to subscribe to The Wikipedian before you leave the page. You can do it!