User talk:Balloonman/DYK hooks

Misdirecting readers

"Today, DYK hooks are just there. The reviewers mistakenly believe that we have to be totally honest and upfront with the readers. We don't. Can we lie to them? No, but a good hook can use some misdirection"

Absolutely not. That is a disgusting statement. Wikipedia's purpose is to inform readers not to "misdirect" them. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between the hook and the article. A hook's purpose is to get people to read more. Misdirection does not mean lie or deceive, but that does not mean that we have to tell them the entire truth. For example, if something happened in Paris, you don't have to tell them that it occured in Paris, Texas as compared to Paris France.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the local news. You should never mislead people, especially on the main page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are not misleading them, you just are not telling them the entire story. This is a time honored practice with just about every news reporting agency---not just local news, but national news, print media, national television, national radio, etc. It is standard practice with hooks NOT to say everything. The goal with hooks is to get people to read the article---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't wikinews or any other news publication. The hooks should simply be interesting facts, they shouldn't misdirect anybody. I agree that all facts of the story can't be included on a hook but that is simply because of the character limit.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, a fair amount of what we have out there are not interesting facts. Good hooks do not summarize the article, they should invite the reader to look for more. If all we were looking for were "interesting facts" then DYK would be a bunch of statements, instead of questions. Questions should invite the reader to investigate and read more. I did move the section you are challenging, thus de-emphasizing it, and modified it some. Despite the fact that I think we disagree, I appreciate the feedback... this is the type that will hopefully make the essay stronger in the long run.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@William: You're right it isn't wikinews but a statement doesn't get anyone to look at the articles which in turn makes DYK's purpose of getting the article improved, moot.--Giants27 (c|s) 15:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree with the use of the word "misdirection." The point is to "direct" individuals to an article not "misdirect" them. If I am misdirected I normally get upset. Let's say an IP is "misdirected" to an article, they won't see what they are expecting and they will probably blank the page or vandalize. The point is to include interesting facts from articles to attract editors. Not by saying it happened in Paris, when we're talking about Paris, Texas. This takes away from the encyclopedia's integrity. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to change the word Misdirect, but by not mentioning that it happened in Paris Texas does NOT take away from WP's integrity. The hook is just that, a short hook, and anybody who bases an opinion or accepts the hook at face value fails to understand what a hook is all about. Hooks are notorious for not giving a complete view of the subject. This is EXPECTED with hooks and only the most anal would expect otherwise. Hooks DO NOT have to expose everything, they only have to introduce the subject and lure people to find out the whole truth. Insisting on telling the entire story in the hook is what leads to boring hooks that nobody cares about.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And here is the reality of the situation, we already do this on a routine basis, the only difference is nobody has called it for what it is. We routinely will use other words or phrases than the title of the subject because the title of the subject is either too long, boring, or doesn't work in the hook.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any problem with piping links. But the Paris analogy seems a little shady. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try reworking it because I suspect that if you saw an DYK with out calling it misdirection, then you probably would not have batted an eye. The challenge is to figure out how to cover this, without conveying a negative image.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]