Template:Did you know nominations/September 11 Digital Archive

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Nineteen Ninety-Four guy talk 09:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

September 11 Digital Archive

(
)
Created by Panamitsu (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 46 past nominations.

―Panamitsu (talk) 07:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC).

  • This will not be a full review, but I think the current hook will get shot down because misinformation is an issue that plagues every wiki. Maybe another angle? Bremps... 08:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Hi, I will be reviewing this today. :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 18:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: While I think this could be a good DYK, there are a few issues that need cleared up. All issues have been addressed, I think ALT1 works best! Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 23:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 18:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Sir MemeGod Why do you think the contributors section is biased against contributors? I don't understand, so please enlighten me :) The only "criticism" in my view is that they can provide misleading information, but Haskins explains why this misleading information can be useful (which neutralises it).
I've fixed the who tag.
I think the interesting part is how the misinformation can be considered useful to historians. ALT1:
"... that misinformation added to the September 11 Digital Archive is considered useful to historians?"
Or if we want to avoid this misinformation thing altogether, how about ALT2:
"... that Chinatown residents were interviewed for the September 11 Digital Archive?" Source: https://www.pcmag.com/opinions/sustaining-the-911-digital-archive
―Panamitsu (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
It just seemed to me to be a bit biased because it started off with “misinformation”, which usually puts people in bad light. I’d suggest just moving it down in the paragraph. Also, I personally like ALT1, since misinformation with use is actually interesting. I’m on mobile right how and can’t see the rest of the article as of now, but I’ll get to it shortly! All I need to check is that fixed who tag and we should be all good! :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 23:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Nevermind, I misread it (it's been a long day). Everything looks good! I'll take a look at the website tomorrow, given the date. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 23:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm gonna be honest, I think the phrasing here, "misleading information about the September 11 attacks", will lead to people jumping to conclusions about quite a serious topic and is worth rephrasing due to potential poor optics. I greatly prefer ALT1 for that reason, it's also a much more interesting hook. 2603:8000:1EF0:73B0:2C72:70DF:55B9:8177 (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)