The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2014-07-23. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-07-23/Featured content

• I would like to see the return of Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement on the Main Page, which I think would be a positive way to encourage editors. We are a collaborative group that selects and improves one article a week. And we are always seeking new editors and new ideas to improve the project. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 07:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I did participate a little in that, but ... I kinda worry that it presupposes knowing how to edit, while not providing an incentive to actually learn how to edit. In other words, its for those who are already familiar with the software. Refresh my memory, though: was TAFI on the MP before or after the VE was up? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I think it was before. At the time there was some ideas that didn't work well. For example, we thought that the massive number of page views would result in so many improvements that there would be nothing but edit conflicts. Therefore not just one article a week would suffice, but 10. It quickly became difficult to manage. Now the project is simplified to one article per week, and the selection process ensures we work on interesting, high quality subjects.

The project does make some presuppositions, but all editing presupposes some ability to edit, otherwise it leaves us with a difficult philosophical problems to explain. But in my mind, who better to help someone learn than a group of experienced editors showing how to turn low quality articles into high quality? Probably the group we would be most appealing to are people who have just started editing, but want to get more involved. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 08:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• • • • (ec) Assuming (ah, yes, another assumption, and this is a big one) that the visual editor works relatively well now, and that people use it, perhaps there might be something to TAFI going back on the main page... but then, this isn't exactly the place to discuss that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

That is a brilliant idea. +1 - David Gerard (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• I like the QPQ system. All editors should participate in writing and reviewing articles, and DYK is a great place to start. DYK attracts less WP:ERRORS than ITN or OTD articles, mainly because of a lengthy review process that has grown elaborate over time. The instruction creep has largely been motivated by a Potemkin-like desire to fool people into thinking that most Wikipedia articles are not poor quality. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• I think it would be quite interesting to run the numbers - which sections receive the most ERRORS posts, the most complaints, whether these increase or decrease for any discernible reason (eg. does DYK receive more or fewer complaints on 8-hour vs 12-hour cycle?). Nikkimaria (talk) 12:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Absolute numbers, or in terms of percentages? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Either, but I'm not sure whether we would want to count per article or per day - if today there is one ERRORS report about DYK, does that count as 1 DYK ERROR, or 1/(however many hooks run today)? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Part of me says each hook should be counted individually (i.e. as a fraction), since it is the product of a certain set of writers and reviewers and not necessarily reflective of the whole, yet another part of me understands that, ultimately, it will be seen as a "DYK" problem, and thus counted as a whole by the general community. I guess it would be interesting to do both, then compare them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
• Though I think it would be interesting to note exactly how long an error is discussed as well (in terms of bytes). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• • I used a script to count articles reported to WP:ERRORS. Not all were necessarily in error. For the month of July (so far), there were three TFA articles reported, 19 In The News articles, 16 On This Day articles, and 14 Did You Know articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    • And two / three POTD. That's not too bad, but not necessarily representative of a regular month (owing to the somewhat stricter queue supervisions) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• DYK also encourages editor retention; another project-wide problem. I dislike the QPQ system; as a long-term contributor, I have seen it decrease the average quality of reviews. In my opinion, what is most needed is a way to reject boring hooks. 'Back in the day' we used to summarily delete suggestions if no-one could come up with an interesting hook; these days that appears no longer permissible. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I also dislike QPQ. It's a ticking time bomb that sooner or later will come back and haunt us. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    • It's been a long time since I last participated at DYK, but is the QPQ system set up to prevent logrolling? -- llywrch (talk) 06:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• This is a great article - thanks for sharing your perspectives. As a comment, I find that the nature of DYK means that it acts to showcase Wikipedia's lighter-weight articles. I tend to write articles on gloomy military history topics, and as presenting a sober fact about them alongside the usual jokey hooks always looks really weird I often don't nominate them for a DYK. Nick-D (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing the problem. For example, next on your to-do list is Operation Mascot. Having read that, I'd go with a hook like "...that a smokescreen caused Operation Mascot to fail but a Victoria Cross was awarded in the aftermath?" I'd have thought that would fit in quite well. Andrew (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I've read the purpose of the "Did you know" section. I totally agree with some of the goals and disagree with others.

The difference between "Did you know" and other sections in the main page is the hook. It's "short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article". That's a great way to attract readers. I think that portals also do that, and should be improved.

So I don't care if the article is recent or if the editor is a beginner. There's other ways to encourage to create new articles or editors. --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• I think that if they're serious about "encouraging readers to edit articles that appear on DYK", then they need less emphasis on technical correctness and completeness (e.g., citing more than every paragraph). Instead, it needs to go back to the old rule, "Leave something (obviously) undone", so that new people will realize that they can join in. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I work at DYK regularly and so am familiar with most of the material presented in the Signpost article already. The biggest change at DYK recently seems to have been the inclusion of GAs and I didn't see any commentary on this aspect. I haven't noticed a big effect myself but haven't seen any detailed analysis or stats. How's that going? Andrew (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• The integration worked pretty well, in my opinion. There has been an issue of some reviewers taking the existing GA reviews as a reason to do a less thorough DYK review, but that doesn't appear to be too common. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

A concrete case of integration going well: mine and Curly Turkey's recent GA Departures (film) had a perfectly acceptable DYK review (check the reviewer's copyedits to the article too). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The Rambling Man: I agree with a lot of what you say. Bad hooks are a problem. QPQ reviews aren't ideal. Template-creep is infuriating. But I do not buy the claims you make linking DYK and new users.

You say that one good reason for DYK is that it encourages new users to contribute. If it does encourage newbies, this is a good thing. I think we can all agree on this. What this does not mean that there are not any other good reasons for DYK. You say "Indeed many disgruntled DYK regulars have informed me that they wouldn't be the Wikipedian they are today without DYK having encouraged them to start editing and "make a difference". It may have been true, but it's now a fallacy." Presumably, by this you mean that while DYK once encouraged new people to contribute, it no longer does. Correct me if I am wrong. First off, I'm not convinced that you're using "fallacy" correctly. Second, you don't justify your claim. The fact that a "look at the edit count of [the authors of] the most recent sets of DYKs placed on the main page shows average contributions per editor exceeding 10,000" does not mean that DYK is not serving the purpose of encouraging newbies, it just means that a lot of the articles going onto DYK are not from encouraged newbies. You make a sideswipe at the WikiCup, which seems neither here nor there, and conclude that, because DYK is encouraged by the WikiCup, "[t]he push is no longer to encourage and retain new users".

The argument seems to be that the only good reason for DYK is "to encourage and retain new users", and, as it is failing in this, DYK is failing. Not only have you not provided evidence that it is failing in this purpose, but there is no reason to accept that DYK has only that purpose, which is contrary to what is said on the relevant project page. Here are five other plausible purposes for DYK: First, to encourage the expansion of old stubs, by giving people a number (five times the length) to aim for. Second, to encourage the creation of topics which are interesting, but which are unlikely to reach GA status. Would I have created Flass if I didn't have DYK to aim for? Maybe, maybe not. Third, to encourage expansion to GA quality for MP exposure of topics. Fourth, to engage readers in Wikipedia articles. Fifth, to show readers and editors that Wikipedia is constantly improving and expanding. I could probably come up with ten more good things DYK can do. As such, I reject your suggestion that the main/only reason for DYK is to encourage new users, I see no reason to believe Wikipedia is failing to do this, and, though I share your reservations about some hooks and some process issues, I reject your suggestion that DYK is "not working". J Milburn (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

And you are entitled to your opinion. Just on one point, the reason I brought WikiCup into it was that it's abundantly obvious that DYK is the simplest and most common way of racking up points with the QPQ system. The annual summaries of the contest back that up. We should add another item to the DYK purpose list "To enable WikiCup competitors to gain easy points". The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Not true. Have a look at the scoreboard. The major way of racking up points is with GA, not DYK. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed- flurries of GAs or moderate numbers of hard-hitting (IE, high-importance) GAs and FAs are the most productive scoring methods (some people are also able to rack up enormous points with FPs, but not many people). The rules have been deliberately written to make flooding DYK exceedingly inefficient, and they work in that regard. Yes, a lot of DYKs are submitted by WikiCup participants, but there are a lot of DYKs featured. More articles become DYKs every day than become GAs or FAs; this should all be obvious. The Rambling Man- I am unsure why you disagree with what I have said. I'm assuming from the fact I'm "entitled to my opinion" that you do, but I don't really see what I have said that is objectionable. J Milburn (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You both overlooked the essential point... "the easiest" as a result of QPQ. DYK has become a haven for WikiCup addicts who have submitted thousands just to get points in the quest for a barnstar, and this goes back to the original issue, DYK no longer does what it was originally intended to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, the scoreboard says otherwise. (And you don't get a barnstar, even of you win!) It's generally harder to find a DYK subject than a GA one, because you have to think of something new, whereas there are articles in need of improvement everywhere you look. (You can nominate a GA article at DYK, but you won't get WikiCup pints for that.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as Hawkeye says, DYK is not an easy way to "rack up" points; it's an easy way to get points, but that's why DYK is worth so few points in the WikiCup. Your claim that DYK is "a haven for WikiCup addicts who have submitted thousands just to get points" is unsubstantiated and irrelevant; even if it was true, so what? If it's all good content, is that a bad thing? It's a long way from obvious that it is. You now claim that DYK was "originally intended" to encourage new users to contribute. First, you don't make this claim in the original opinion piece- you talked about its current purpose, or a purpose it may once have had, not its original intention. Second, I see no reason to believe that this was the original intention, as you have provided no evidence. Third, even if it was the original intention, so what? There are many other good things that DYK can do, as I have explained. If it offers significant benefits in 10 ways, but has failed in it's "original purpose", does that make it a bad project? Almost certainly not. J Milburn (talk) 11:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, you miss a salient point. You suggest "If it's all good content,"... and it clearly is not (although standards have had a step improvement over the last month or so following the scrutiny applied). I'm sorry this has made you so hostile. As I said, we are, both of us, entitled to our opinions, and mine is that thousands of DYKs have been botched together to fulfil the dreams of those seeking to win barnstars, QPQing each other all the way. The purpose has been hijacked. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You suggest "If it's all good content,"... and it clearly is not- Great; we have identified the problem. Not the fact that DYK has lost sight of some mythical purpose known only to a select few, nor the fact that people in the WikiCup enjoy contributing to DYK- the problem is that bad articles are being submitted to DYK. If that's true, and we've all seen examples of woeful nominations, then this is a problem. Now we need to ask why bad articles are being submitted, who is submitting them and what we can do to solve this. I'm not being hostile, here; all I'm doing is pointing out why I find your original opinion piece to be so unconvincing. We agree that bad DYKs are a problem, but this has nothing to do with how DYK has "lost" its "purpose" or "failed" in its "goal" of encouraging newbies. My point is that I see no reason to focus this latter issue, which seems to me neither here nor there. J Milburn (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

"the problem is that bad articles are being submitted to DYK" - nope. The problem is that bad articles are being QPQ-ed through DYK to help people gain points. The backlog generated by the WikiCup rush at DYK causes errors to get to the main page and dissuades new editors. Remove the tantalising carrot of points per DYK and return to a quest for quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

My apologies- You're at least partially right, so allow me to rephrase. I accept that bad articles being submitted at DYK is not the problem itself, the problem is bad articles getting through the DYK review process and appearing on the main page. As for the WikiCup- Have you any evidence for the claim that "bad articles are being QPQ-ed through DYK to help people gain points"? If so, I will more than happily act upon it in my role as WikiCup judge, and be ready to come down very hard on it next year. (And I have had stern words with a few about poor DYK noms this year.) Deliberate "I'll approve your crap if you approve mine" is definitely not allowed in the Cup, but I fully accept that I may have missed instances of it. J Milburn (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the Cup performed any level of quality control on items submitted, other than to check that they actually achieved their goal, i.e. the items in question became a DYK, a GA etc. In that sense you will miss all instances of crap QPQ because it's nothing to do with the Cup, just a failing of the QPQ part of the DYK process. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not so much "quality control" as checking for mistakes or deliberate gaming- it's not my job to say "that GA doesn't count, because I wouldn't have promoted it if I was the reviewer" (though I could then nominate for delisting in particularly bad cases). Again, if you have evidence of deliberate gaming, I'd be very interested to hear it. If you'd rather offer it in private, you're welcome to email me. What I've generally found, however, is that people assume a lot of Bad Stuff is happening in the WikiCup, but, when they look closer, there's nothing (or very little) to be found. There have been a few instances of problematic activities, and these have been dealt with- competitors have been ejected, content has been rejected, rules have been changed or tightened. J Milburn (talk) 12:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting Bad Stuff is happening other than the easy exploitation of a derisory QPQ system which perpetuates a "you scratch my back" ethos. Until recently, the quality of many DYKs has been rock bottom, many hooks have been dire (yes, subjective, but really "A is the daughter of B" stuff, and "C played his first game for D" stuff isn't going to pique most reader's interest), etc: most DYK reviews are based on meeting the simple checklist, very few reviews actively seek for a quality article. Thankfully with the issues recently highlighted, this is slowly improving. Just a quick note on DYKs at the WikiCup, for 2013, DYKs accounted for nearly 46% of the total points scored in the contest. 2012 saw 56% of the WikiCup points come from DYKs. 40% so far this year. The WikiCup has created a backlog as DYK provides an easy route to score points and with the accompanying urgency to deal with the backlog, has pushed quality downhill as QPQ satisfies the desire to win an arbitrary contest. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're trying to prove. If bad stuff is not happening as a result of the WikiCup, so what? And how could the WikiCup be causing a backlog if there are QPQ reviews? Every WikiCup submission is accompanied by a review, so the WikiCup couldn't possibly be creating a backlog. I agree with you that bad hooks are a problem, I agree with you that QPQ isn't ideal, I agree that bad articles appearing on the MP is a bad thing. (Where are your numbers from? I'm pretty sure they don't prove what you think they prove. They certainly don't prove that the WikiCup is causing problems at DYK, and nor do they prove that DYK is an easy source of points in the Cup. As Hawkeye and I have explained, it isn't.) I can't help but feel that, as is often the case when people talk generally about article quality or audit processes, the WikiCup serves as a convenient foil- it's a convenient project to point at and say "it's their fault". (Also, I have no idea what you think the word "arbitrary" means. In what way is the WikiCup "arbitrary"?) J Milburn (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

"the WikiCup couldn't possibly be creating a backlog" you clearly don't understand how DYK works, and that's really sad considering this "contest" has driven DYK quality down. Have a think about how DYK works and what a massive increase in nominations for cheap points does to the system, then you'll understand how the backlog exists. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with some of the assertions you make. That doesn't mean I "clearly don't understand how DYK works". I'm looking for a clear and evidence-based explanation of why the WikiCup is a bad thing for DYK. You have been unable to offer this, despite the fact I have repeatedly asked for it, and despite the fact you have repeatedly alluded to just how awful the Cup is. I suspect you have been unable to offer this because no such explanation exists. J Milburn (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You miss the point a fourth time (a record perhaps). My original essay was on the failings of the current DYK system. Many WikiCup exponents just happens to exploit the simplicity and lack of quality of the QPQ process at DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Show us the evidence. Until you provide any evidence for your claims, they should be ignored with extreme prejudice. J Milburn (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

And by all means do that. I'm glad to have this discourse as it has demonstrated to me how little some know about the process of DYK and its decline and fall over the past few years. I hope you're glad to have been part of it. For my part, I'm glad to see the standards improving, the backlog will get larger and larger until the process is properly overhauled, but at least we won't be pushing QPQ'ed garbage to the main page for the sake of a few WikiCup points. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Whatever helps you sleep at night. If you do ever come across any evidence of WikiCup-caused problems, please contact me, and I'll do what I can to make the changes. (That's if you can stand to talk to someone who so clearly doesn't get it, man and so clearly is a part of the problem.) If you'd rather just gripe, knock yourself out. J Milburn (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I was asked for my opinion for The Signpost. I gave it. You didn't like it, or the implications. Sorry about that. Time for us both to move on and do something more productive, if you can reduce the points for a DYK to 1 and increase the points for a GAR to 10, that'd really help Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The requirement that an editor submitting a DYK nomination should simultaneously review a pending nomination was presumably implemented (I haven't seen the actual discussion) to address backlogs in the review process and to increase participation in the process. It certainly has done the latter. One might presume that an inexperienced reviewer might not be as familiar with the steps of a good review as an experienced one, however, which is why an additional review before an approved hook actually enters the queue makes sense.

Although the "review another article yourself" requirement makes sense, I strongly dislike the term "quid pro quo review" and would urge that it not be used. As reflected in our article at quid pro quo, the phrase has a strong connotation of "doing a favor" or "you scratch my back..." that we'd be better off avoiding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Brad, you are correct in that. I recall QPQ being implemented around 2010 or so because there was a backlog, in large part because there were people who made lots of nominations without reviewing any, and the reviewers at the time (something I no longer had the time to do to the extent that I did it prior to 2009, when I became a functionary) naturally resented this.

You have a point about the name ... perhaps we should change it to Nominate One, Review One (NORO)? Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Noro makes me giggle (it's a virus that causes vomiting/diarrhoea), but I think changing the name is a sound idea. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but how many people know that? And would it be the only such unfortunate acronym? Daniel Case (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise that the purpose of DYKs is to encourage newbies. The way I see it, DYK was presumably created to highlight interesting facts from WP to embellish the main page. In order to prevent recycling of old content, it was initially limited to newly added content only. Later on it was amended to included new GAs - probably to broaden scope for getting new facts, enable older older content to be brought and as an encouragement to up articles to GA status.

If newbies are encouraged, empowered by DYK, great! But DYK's high standards as laid down in the rules is at odds with the newbies lack of knowledge, skills and experience. Dumbing down DYK processes & stds for newbies is exactly opposite to the Rambling Man's complaint about DYK not having interesting hooks, and being candidates at WP:ERRORS & WP:ANI.

Imho, newbies face two barriers - the high standards of editting required for good DYKs, and, secondly, the technical issue mentioned by the Rambling Man ie the process of workflow of nomination, review, placement in queue etc which does deserve to be simplified. It is much more important for newbies that this happens as it will make it easier for them to place DYKs. Also, its that part which is most easily remedied. Other fundamental changes would need discussion and consensus and probably not be doable in the short term.

AshLin (talk) 07:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Ash: the workflow issue is not dealt with by newbies, at least until they feel willing to do it. All they need to do is write an article and nominate. Even the review only comes into play after they've written and nominated at least five articles. As for the rules challenging the newbies: yes, it's true. But it also helps them grow as editors. As I mentioned in my bit, my first DYK looked like this. My most recent solo DYK looked like this (four non-solo DYKs have run since then). The challenges help new editors develop as editors, at least when they are willing to listen and understand why something is considered inadequate. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: Classic Malay literature is no longer a redlink (Blame User:Modest Genius for that ;P). Perhaps you can reword the sentence a bit (e.g. "still doesn't have its own article")? Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 12:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• That is a completely different field (and a bone of contention between Malaysia and Indonesia). I'll be RfD'ing that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Changed my mind. I'll stub it and give a few works that can be cited. My library is more focused on modern Indonesian literature, though I do have a couple books here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Also have changed the article text here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Though DYK helped me immensely in getting started, its main function for me has always been being Wikipedia's equivalent of a "share" button. It lets you highlight fascinating things in articles in Wikipedia. A way to draw in readers. And that's demonstrable enough since truly interesting articles in DYK get thousands of pageviews with people sometimes leaving in comments in the talk pages. It's also one of the few ways we gain satisfaction from our work. The knowledge that someone is reading it and perhaps benefiting from it.

Though it just so happens that it sometimes helps "new" editors learn the ropes because of the review system, I think it would be a mistake to approach DYK like it was a newbie section primarily, or to criticize it because most contributors aren't "new". Because it really is not a newbie section. To even get into it you need to already have been editing for quite a bit, and are already familiar with the hows and whys of writing an article. Including our labyrinthine guidelines and policies.

I've done some work volunteering for Articles for Creation in IRC a while back, and I know what true newbies are like (excluding the paid single-purpose PR people that comprise the bulk of them). And honestly, I wouldn't exactly put the articles they write on the main page. No matter how well-intentioned. It's the equivalent of putting your six-year old daughter's crayon drawing on the main display hall of your art gallery (though that seems to be fashionable in the art world nowadays LOL). She may grow up to be a master artist, but you're not doing your gallery any favors until then. Undeniably, it is a very good way of encouraging her to paint more (still using the gallery metaphor). But you still have to set quality standards that she must aspire to before her work can be displayed alongside that of the rest.

It's more accurate to view DYK as a "lite" form of the featured article section in terms of its purpose within the community. Especially given that it has now integrated GA into it. IMO, it has three main goals:

1. To encourage the creation of new articles or the expansion of existing ones.

2. To encourage editors to aim for a better quality in their articles, ones that pass the quality requirements of their peers.

3. To encourage readers to read our articles by offering them something weird and interesting that they may not know.

In short, DYK is a place for existing editors to grow. it is not a place to reach out to totally clueless editors who have never hit the Edit button until now.

The main problems of DYK from experience is simply rule creep and the way it has become too bureaucratic. The way we usually enforce the rules with no consideration to the readers.

For example, a new article on a boring hook on a boring subject with two paragraphs in it will be included in DYK. No matter how boring. Simply because it passes the word count and the date of creation rules. Doesn't matter if no one will ever click them, we pass them because they pass the rules. Meanwhile a preexisting far more interesting article will be invalidated simply because of things like the technicality that some time in its existence, someone added paragraphs and paragraphs of rubbish copyvio content. And DYK rules for some unfathomable reason will always include those in the prior word count. Making the article eternally ineligible for expansion. No matter if the article was really about something fascinating. Or that in actuality it was a true stub once the copyvio/vandalism/rubbish content had been taken out. It's one of the reasons why people sometimes use it badly for the WikiCup. Because they can get away with the bare minimum. (Not saying everyone who uses it for the WikiCup are doing so, however. Some do make the effort of finding truly interesting subjects to write about)

The problem is that we treat DYK like we were government employees processing tax returns, when we should be treating it with a bit more creativity. The state of QPQ merely reflects that, QPQ itself is not the problem. A bit more consideration should be given to getting the attention of the readers. Of educating them, and of pride in what our community has written. Because again, let's not forget that DYK is literally a "Did you know...?" section. And it ends up in the Main Page. What we put there affects how the world sees us in terms of quality and reliability. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I mostly agree entirely, and I said similar in my criticism of The Rambling Man's position. However, I will say that WikiCup rules now make the two-paragraph ultra-boring DYK worth very few points. Longer DYKs, expansions of older articles and especially DYKs on more important topics are very much preferable, meaning anyone who "farms" these terrible DYK articles will be out of the competition very quickly. We have only really had one contributor who inundated T:TDYK with a large number of "dull" short articles, and this was several years ago now, before the introduction of the new WikiCup DYK rules. J Milburn (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

As a seven-year veteran of DYK with over 550 hooks, I found this criticism better put than others we've gotten in the past, perhaps because TRM has more actual experience with the feature and isn't angling to replace it with something he prefers. Generally, I think, a lot fo this results from our efforts ca. 2009–11 to automate the process—when everything had to be done manually, there were a lot more hands and eyes on each hook and we could spot problems more frequently (I'm not saying we were perfect). Two items in particular stand out: the QPQ system, about which I've said what I really wanted to in my response to Brad above, and the "dull hooks" problem, which I've often commented on in particular nominees.

Spotting a good hook in an article takes more than just the usual writing skills. It takes—dare I say it?—journalistic skills, since you're basically looking for the buried lede. And just as a lot of new editors don't start with the greatest of writing or researching skills, they don't have the editorial skill to find this, even when it's there and they've sourced it. They often go for things like "... that X is Y's brother?" (so?) or "that X won the Y Award" (someone has to win it).

They also come about because of unfamiliarity with the subject matter on the part of nominator and/or reviewer. See, for instance, why I changed the hook for Froze-to-Death Mountain. Would someone with less familiarity with mountaineering than I have let the original hook through, and not realized what the really surprising fact in the article was? Probably.

We need a page explaining better how to find a good hook in the article you want to nominate. If someone nags me enough, I will do it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I feel fully comfortable with overt gamification of any part of Wikipedia. It's very easy to lose sight of the raison d'etre as the game becomes an end in itself. The editorials mentioned the technical jungle and the potentially hostile nature of the reviews, those things might not make much sense in the big picture, but they make a lot of sense once you start to view DYK from the "gaming" context.

Established "high scorers" want to create and maintain barriers to new entrants. The game has to be "winnable" so they can't make it impossible to score points, but they can put in subtle barriers to new players. This might happen on a subconscious level that even the players aren't fully cognizant of. As in any game, there's an undercurrent of contempt toward "newbs", while still maintaining a superficial facade of friendliness toward new users, at least those who are willing to climb the relatively steep learning curve without being spoonfed.

I'm really not picking on DYK alone here, I see this a little bit in a project I'm more involved in, AfC, which has become slightly gamified as well. It's not unique to Wikipedia either, it seems to happen in a lot of pursuits. Ham radio, for example, had a tremendous outcry from mostly older members when Morse code barriers to entry were eliminated. Gigs (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The Content translation tool hasn't been deployed to any Wikipedias. It's still only deployed to beta labs. Note the "beta.wmflabs.org" in the urls in the blog post. Legoktm (talk) 05:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I love the New Yorker, but I guess the summer-long "free-for-all" is not so free for all, because I just tried to access the open archive and got stuck at a pay wall here. Jane (talk) 06:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jane023: You're correct and The Signpost was not - I've changed the Signpost article accordingly. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks John Broughton, and my apologies to Jane. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I also opened a ticket at the New Yorker, so far three replies about the administration of the ticket, but no response about whether their archive is indeed supposed to be open for everybody. Re-reading their announcement, it looks like their archive is behind a paywall for current subscribers, so this summer the current subscribers can access it for free, that's all. Jane (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

"Non-subscribers will get a chance to explore The New Yorker fully and freely, just as subscribers always have. Then, in the fall, we move to a second phase, implementing an easier-to-use, logical, metered paywall." Let's wait until August. DS (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is some articles are still randomly blocked behind a pay-wall; and they may also have a limit to how many can be viewed per day or month (like the NYT method). -- GreenC 22:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC) I got an answer from the ticket I opened, and here it is: "Thank you for your inquiry regarding the Archives. The Archives is still a subscriber based benefit, which has access to issues as far back as 1925. Access to our website is what is free at the moment. The website is updated daily with new articles, information, blogs, cartoons, etc. The Article you are referring to is one that is speaking about the Author only. " So no free archive access (bummer), but access to the website, which is still nice I suppose. 20:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the free access articles are only those posted on their website from 2007, rather than the full archive from 1925. May be good to amend the story to clarify this. -- Shudde ^talk 11:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

File:"Konig Albert," Promenade Deck, North German Lloyd, Royal Mail Steamers"-LCCN2002720829.jpg, presented at the top, appears to lack a German PD tag, btw. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Good spot Hchc2009, thanks for mentioning it. As the chromolithographs are almost entirely already in country specific categories, it would be a fairly easy and neat systematic improvement to add local licences for where each original photo was taken, as well as the one for the USA.

 Done This one fixed (PD-old-70 looks sufficient, with the photographer unknown), adding the others to my backlog, non-Germany maybe after Wikimania, as there is quite a lot of stuff to get done. --Fæ (talk) 11:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Although there is less than one day left to comment on the evidence page, and less than a week left for any public participation in the workshop page, there have already been calls to desyssop User:Eloquence. The opening salvo was fired by Dennis Brown, who states, "This has a demoralizing effect on the admin corps, knowing we are one hissy fit away from being desysopped by a disgruntled employee." —Neotarf (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

For anyone going to the Wikimania conference in London 6-10 August, at wm2014:Submissions/Using the Mass upload tool to copy GLAM collections to Commons there will be a presentation Sunday 11:30 – 12:00 on the toolset. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Not just that, but there will also be a hackathon session about it, but immediately before the one you mention (which is more of a demonstration) there will also be this presentation: "GLAMwiki Toolset: Bringing the cultural sector and Wikimedia together". Finally, there will also be a Europeana/GLAMwiki Toolset stall in the main foryer of the conference. Wittylama 09:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Just a minor clarification, my presentation (Sunday, 11.30) is focussed on the "how" but it is not actually a demonstration. I'm planning on running through real case studies of large uploads that rely on the GWT, along with how common issues that arise when "pre-processing" (structuring the xml input) and "post-processing" (handling with all sorts of house keeping problems). Hopefully the sort of material that gives current and future users and project teams a running start, along with up-front planning of what support and skills they will need, without it becoming a user manual walkthrough (which everyone can do as homework afterwards). --Fæ (talk) 11:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• After weeks in the top 5, Amazon.com has mysteriously disappeared from the top 25 and after comments last week about possible manipulation :) -- GreenC 22:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Well, its disappeared because I've removed it based on the prior discussions and additional investigation. (Its noted on the exclusions section of the WP:TOP25 and under the discussion of entry #1). I'm glad you asked about it, so my response here gives another heads up. The views did do down a lot in the next 7 day period that will be covered in the next report, but I doubt the drop is because of our sleuthing.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Extra note, I mentioned Operation Protective Edge and the Arabic version title in #7; since I wrote that the English article was moved per Talk:2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Move_request_1. A number of other language wikis retain protective edge based names.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-07-23/Wikimedia in education