Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 70

Archive 65

←

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

→

Archive 75

DYK is getting too complicated

At first, anyone could post and review DYK as they pleased. Then, you were forced to review someone else's DYK nom if you posted one yourself. This was, in my opinion, a poorly thought idea, because although the backlog gets cleared faster, it leads to a ton of shoddy reviews. Now there is a whole checklist you need to go through for each nomination. (Come on... Vintage? Really?) Even worse, several checklists are half completed anyhow, so you don't know if one article is reviewed or not. I propose we go back to the original system and just raise the threshold for inclusion to, say, 2500 characters. Anyone? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Raising the character minimum has been proposed numerous times (most recently, just a few sections above this one, #Proposal - minimum character requirement increase from 1500 to 2500), and is not anywhere close to getting consensus, for several reasons.

As for the rest of your comments, I agree that things have gotten over complicated, but I think there are some positive things about the checklist. In particular, I actually like that the checklist encourages "half-completed reviews". In the past it has often been the case that people were hesitant to comment on a nom at all if they weren't prepared to do a full review, but it's nice to be able to just comment on one part of the nom that you are concerned about—for instance, recently I've mainly been interested in checking hooks to see if they're interesting and hooky, but not so much interested in most of the other aspects of reviewing. The checklist makes it possible for someone who focuses on one aspect of reviewing to just comment there, and leaves it clear for other reviewers what parts of the review still need to be completed. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes but we are still required to review a hook to post a hook. Does half reviewing a hook count as a review? Etc. etc. When does this stop people? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about that. There are probably discussions about it elsewhere in the archives (there may be details in the rules but I haven't checked). To be perfectly honest I don't like that review requirement so I haven't paid much attention to how it works. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Can we at least get rid of the review requirement even if we keep the checklists? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of the question. If there's no review requirement, there is no point having a checklist. I would support raising the threshold slightly, but that is completely unrelated to the qualitative issues we need to address. Also, I don't understand what you mean by half-review of a hook – instant association with 'half-pregnant'. ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

("Review requirement" isn't referring to reviewing in general, but to the rule that people nominating a hook must also review one. Before about a year ago, reviews were conducted on an entirely volunteer basis. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC))

(edit conflict)As to a nomination review requirement, which there is no consensus to do away with, it is for a 'full review' according to my reading. Even after a reviewer passes, there is nothing to stop another reviewer to block its entry to the queue for whatever [valid] reason to ensure compliance with the rules. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)After reading a lot of the discussion here, I think DYK needs to slow down first. With less hooks, there will be more time to pay attention to each. Instead of a rush to fill the queues or prep areas, at times. In turn, the best way to reduce hooks is to increase the standards or strictly maintain those present.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This has been said over and over again but there has never been agreement on how to do it. The number of DYK submissions is what it is; thus, any proposal to promote fewer of them (which is what you mean if you say updates shouldn't be frequent) necessarily entails rejecting more of them. Would that mean rejecting hooks that meet the requirements and have been approved, but aren't considered interesting enough? Would it mean only accepting GA-quality articles? All these kinds of proposals have been put forth (multiple times) and in general have not gotten consensus. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

What about DYK delegates (similar to FAC) who can quickly 'archive' certain hooks or judge consensus/review on others?--NortyNort (Holla) 03:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That still doesn't solve the problem of lack of consensus for any of the various solutions proposed above. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Until now, the PQP review system has meant, in effect, a check of the character length and vintage (i.e., five-day 5× expansion rule, or the equivalent for BLP noms). It is well and good to have some clerical checking done by nominators, but in the interests of (1) inducting nominators more into the reviewing, and thus the learning process, and (2) getting more of the checking done by more editors, I think the time has come to specify what PQP involves. I suggest it be the bits I've coloured red, plus at least one of the bits coloured green:

Hook

• Length, format, content rules:
• Source:
• Interest:
• Image suitability, if applicable:
• ALT hooks, if proposed:

Article

• Length:
• Vintage:
• Sourcing (V, RS, BLP):
• Neutrality:
• Plagiarism/close paraphrasing:
• Copyvio:
• Obvious faults in prose, structure, formatting:

Tony (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me like this just adds an extra level of complexity to the checklist. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This particular checklist clearly has no consensus at this point in any case, so this proposal is premature. We need to have a discussion about what the checklist should consist of first. Gatoclass (talk) 04:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Gato, I'm not suggesting the colours for use in the actual checklist‚—only that the QPQ instructions specify one of the green ones. It would in essence be a slight expansion of the requirements for QPQ, and a good way to bind together the whole DYK process. Tony (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of dividing reviews amongst a number of different people, when someone does a review, they should do every aspect, otherwise we are going to need more manpower to complete reviews, apart from the fact that it will become more difficult to monitor the current status of each review. We should be striving to keep things simple and accessible. Gatoclass (talk) 05:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Half-finished reviews (and anything which promotes them) are counter-productive to the whole system. Nobody wants to finish a half-started review, and it makes it much harder to see which hooks have been assessed and which haven't. Other reviewers are welcome to make additional comments on any criterion, but the primary review – the QPQ review required by the current rules – has to be a single obvious mark. For hooks promoting multiple new articles, by all means divide the labour among several checkers, but for simple ones, it needs to be one person. The QPQ system cannot work any other way. The checklist is ugly, badly thought out and counterproductive. Indeed, any checklist is likely to be counterproductive to this end. Particularly since they tend to get marked only by (typically personalised & colourful) signatures, seeing what has been passed becomes incredibly difficult, and we end up with lots of partly-reviewed hooks, and no-one knowing who's supposed to go back and finish them off. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Gatoclass and Stemonitis, it's not reasonable to expect single reviewers to conduct an entire audit of any nomination, unless they happen to want to do this and feel they have the background. The tick tick tick approach of waving noms through has led to the problems people are complaining of (loudly ... I think you can hear them). The system needs to shift from pushing through quantity to checking and passing WRT policy-compliance and quality. That this might involve more than one reviewer is a very good thing, both in terms of quality and policy assurance and in terms of the social interaction between editors in the DYK process. Tony (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Tony, you still appear to be tilting at windmills here. There is no support for reducing the throughput of articles. DYK is not about to become GA-Lite. What we are doing is putting in place a system for encouraging a better quality of review, but that doesn't mean reduced throughput, it just means ensuring that people are doing what they are supposed to be doing under the current system. Gatoclass (talk) 13:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Gato, that's fine, but I was concerned you were making people feel bad if they review only some aspects of a nom. The QPQ system got a very bad name because it was sometimes treated as the the review, the whole review, and nothing but the review. I support the QPQ system, but it should be recognised for what it does, which is to contribute only partially to the review of noms. Tony (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As Stemonitis said, QPQ means a reviewer does a complete review, not half of one. We need more thorough reviewing, not less. I'm mystified by your apparent notion that QPQ reviewers will be doing less than they are doing now. The whole point of the checklist is to help ensure that QPQ reviewers check all the criteria and don't miss any aspects of the review process. Gatoclass (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I have not been able to read all 100 posts made here since I last read DYK, but I agree with the initial post in this section: neither QPQ reviewing, nor the addition of a template, are solutions to what ailed/ails DYK, and both of them have/will lead to further deterioration. A template is garbgage in= garbage out, is an unnecessary burden, and does not address the issues at DYK, which is reviewers not knowledgeable in Wikipedia policy, and no "directorate" or accountability, via archives and a person where the buck stops in terms of knowing problem nominators, problem reviewers, DYK history, and Wikipedia policy. The process is only as good as its reviewers: a template will not fix that. That's all I have time for today (I'm sure some are happy that I didn't have time to look at the DYKs on the main page for the past three days so I could post the daily debacle ... count your blessings, they are surely there :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that decreasing the volume of DYK would probably help alleviate some of these problems. If we raised the requirements and did, say, 2 rounds of DYK per day instead of 3 or 4 we probably wouldn't get so many problematic articles slipping through the cracks. Kaldari (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing my first article I also think that DYK is getting too complicated. Still I propose to wait for some time and to try to follow the new DYK review procedures before we decide what is our opinion about it and how to deal with it if necessary. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Reducing the number of hooks per day would be a great idea. Five good ones is enough, so what if they're there for a day or two. The cycle is <review comment>, <nominator response>, <review comment> plus work and home life. I can't see how any employed and sociable reviewer can do multiple articles within that cycle if it's less than 48 hours. Lightmouse (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not usually less than 48 hours. Often the process of reviewing a nomination proceeds for a week or more. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me. The duration from when the hook is posted may well exceed 48 hours. But I'm talking about the point of view of a busy reviewer doing multiple hooks and having other things to do i.e. the duration from when the reviewer first makes a comment. I had several occasions where DYK failures resulted from a sub-48 hour cycle. Lightmouse (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, way too complicated, convoluted and bureaucratic now. Mainly because of the people who want to make them mini FAs. I'm not participating in DYK anymore. DYKs should encourage new articles, not make it a tiresome burden. I hope the rest of wiki isn't like this.PumpkinSky talk 22:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, why don't you stop being such a diva? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Why not really, really simplify things?

Get a little radical. Eliminate time limits. Make any article that has not already been a DYK eligible regardless of age, expansion level or status, though with reasonable minimum size limits. This would remove the time pressure to complete a review. Simplified rules:

1. Minimum 2500 characters
2. Must not have any major cleanup tags (BLP, unsourced, NPOV, etc). Minor tags are alright (part of the goal is to encourage editing)
3. Must not already be on the main page (i.e. as an ITN item) (alternative: Must not have appeared previously as ITN, DYK, OTD or TFA)
4. Hook must be NPOV
5. Encourage (but not require) multiple reviewers before a hook is promoted.

If one likes, Proposed DYKs could be sectioned off by class or rank: GAs, FAs, new, recently updated, etc. to allow for a main page balance that potentially allows for a GA hook, a couple new articles, a couple newly expanded, etc. Resolute 20:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it a major problem is the backlog. Wouldn't this just increase it even further? AIRcorn (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, this recent trend makes it way over complicated and bureaucratic. I'm not submitting anything else. PumpkinSky talk 22:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That is one way to reduce the backlog. AIRcorn (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This new system for reviewing nominations is too complicated for non-regulars to figure out. (I have 50+ DYK's, I just came here to discover the new system in place since I was last here, I've spent the last half hour or so just getting up to speed, and I still have little or no idea how to pick out the nominations that still need reviews from the mess the new system makes of T:TDYK.) Together with the requirement that nominators must review something else, this is a very WP:BITEy combination, something that seems likely to keep anyone but dedicated bureaucracy-lovers out and overall worsen the DYK system. I agree with Editorofthewiki: why don't we just return to the previous system? This is broken. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

David, you hardly count as a non-regular, then. On the contrary, the system of tick tick tick, with those weird, hard to follow coloured icons, and the assumption that all site policies, and hook and article, were covered by a single nominator in flash-quick time: this was the hard bit for non-regulars to figure out. The community has insisted on an explicit checklist for basic quality and policy compliance; this is inevitable if DYK standards are to rise. If you want to apprise yourself of the stinging dislike of DYK by many other editors, take a look at the loud complaining. I launched the RfCs and rolled out the pursuant checklist as a way of saving DYK from the threat of being scaled back or dumped by the WP community (as Resolute is hinting above, there are other more rigorously reviewed processes that would step in tomorrow and take up the slack if the creators of new articles aren't interested in rigour: the forces for substitution have been building for some time. So any nominator or reviewer here, like Pumpkin, who feels unwilling to participate in a more rigorous review process for DYKs, might take this into account if they think the main page is not worth taking a little care over: that's all I can say. Tony (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Response to Gatoclass on QPQ: You say "As Stemonitis said, QPQ means a reviewer does a complete review, not half of one. We need more thorough reviewing, not less. I'm mystified by your apparent notion that QPQ reviewers will be doing less than they are doing now." You have got to be joking ... do you really think QPQ reviews have been more than character counts? They are utterly superficial and uncaring, which is fine if they don't purport to do more than just the clerical stuff (article length, vintage, etc). Let's not fool ourselves. The "Kamal Abbas" nom showing on the page now starts with this, for example:

creation date, size, hook and sourcing all confirmed. Prose is acceptable. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• I just checked this through as this appears to be a first review and found that the ref doesn't fully support the hook, not mentioning the storming, arrest or torture. Mikenorton (talk) 11:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Please recheck, I've added/moved around some references. Arrest and torture are clearly sourced, and the security policy putting it down with force is also referenced. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The hook sourcing is now fine, the date, size and image are OK, but there are still 11 references as bare urls which need to be fixed see Rule D6. Mikenorton (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, all ready now. Mikenorton (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please shorten the hook to less than 200 characters. --PFHLai (talk) 02:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Further down we find that there's copyvio, too. Are you really persisting with this fiction that QPQ, untethered to the checklist, is not letting through egregiously bad DYK articles onto the main page? Tony (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Tony, you seem to have something of a talent for creating strawmen. I have never claimed that QPQ's "untethered to [a] checklist" are not without problems. What I've said is that expecting QPQ reviewers to do only half a review is not acceptable. The reason we are adding a checklist is to remind reviewers of what they need to do to complete a review, not to give them an option to just tick off one or two items on the list. Gatoclass (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The article hasn't been let through to the main page, so using that example in an argument that the process is "letting through egregiously bad DYK articles onto the main page" is not very useful. Yomangani^talk 09:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's a fine example of how QPQ reviewing is a sham, while purporting to cover checking for full compliance with DYK's own rules, not to mention those of WP. The QPQ review tosses off the usual "creation date, size, hook and sourcing all confirmed. Prose is acceptable." But this claim falls over with the first breeze. Tony (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It would have been nice to know that my name had come up here - I just happened to look in at this discussion while on holiday. I spot checked for copyvio/close paraphrasing and found none in the examples that I looked at, but that's not a claim that there isn't any. The article is not shockingly bad in my view (that's what egregiously bad actually means), whatever issues have been found. I checked the original review because I didn't recognise the reviewer's name and thought that he might be inexperienced - hence the check. It's what we're supposed to do - it happened before QPQ came in as well, if not as often. I don't have time now to help fix any problems in the article (which I would normally do), but I hope that it makes it as it was an interesting article. Mikenorton (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It might be a fine example of that, but it isn't an example of "letting through egregiously bad DYK articles onto the main page" which is what you implied initially. Yomangani^talk 10:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Even if a good idea in principle, practically nobody wants to bothered with these complicated reviews, this is the problem. And no its not a good thing because our regular decent contributors are no longer bothering. It does not eliminate the crap, in fact it is hampering the decent content being proposed. I agree with Eddy, if we must have these lengthy reviews we should take away the demand to have to review just to propose your article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Multi hooks

I want to do an 8-article multi hook. How do I do so with the new procedure?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

In the "create nomination" box that you have to fill in, what you put in there can really be anything. You can list all 8 articles separated by commas, you could just put in "[some article] et al.", or even just "8 articles from Tony", it makes no difference.

After that, just fill out the template the same way you used to. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's an example of a new multi hook: Template talk:Did you know/Toposa People, Nadapal, Narus, South Sudan. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'd draw the upper limit at about 4 bolded links per hook. Unless there is a very strong and compelling reason why they have to be in the same blurb, it should best be avoided. If anything, it would be near-impossible to review properly; problems in any one of the articles are likely to result in the failure of the entire 8 article nomination. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• While I sympathize with your concerns about multi-hooks, there is a long-standing tradition of multi-hooks on DYK. If someone wants to put a limit on the number of hooks, that should be put forth as a separate discussion; it's not really fair to challenge one editor's multi-hook for personal reasons before a consensus has been established against them. If someone comes and asks me how to use my template to nominate a multi-hook, it's only fair of me to tell them how to do it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, you supplied the technical response. I did state my preference for four article limit, but explained that it was due to a practical consideration that is not entirely a 'personal reason'. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hooks of 11 or eight DYK articles are unreasonable for the reviewing process and impractical in terms of how the readers will respond (by not clicking on any, probably). I believe three should be the absolute upper limit, and discouraged at that. Tony (talk) 03:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

We have a tradition of encouraging multinoms here, and that is not going to change, regardless of the views of one or two editors who think otherwise. And there is currently no "new procedure" that has consensus TonytheTiger, except having separate pages for noms. Just start a new page for your multinom using the instructions at the top of T:TDYK, that's all you need to worry about at this point. Gatoclass (talk) 03:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine, just as long as each of the eight articles is separately checked off for all aspects as required by the RfC. Tony (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

We don't have an agreed-upon checklist yet, so talking about "requirements" is premature. And I'm not sure we need to have each article separately checked off. In my experience, it's usually much easier to check a bunch of multinoms than a bunch of unrelated noms, since the former tend to share all the same references and have many other aspects in common. Gatoclass (talk) 04:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

But how can we know without a proper system documenting that checks have been performed? "We don't have an agreed-upon checklist yet"—It's like talking to people who put their fingers in their ears and say "la-la-la-la-la-la". The RfC overwhelmingly endorsed an explicit checklist, bullet by bullet. Now, you may have useful improvements to suggest, involving easy-to-use, simple, logical icons (in addition to text), but the fundamentals have community consensus. Tony (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tony that, per the RfC, each article in a multinom must be explicitly checked and passed for those items; however, there is no agreement on a specific template, or even whether a template is needed. As long as reviewers explicitly verify that they have checked each item, that is sufficient for the RfC.
As to whether we should allow, encourage, or discourage multinoms, I think they should be not only allowed but encouraged. Use of multinoms, where appropriate, helps to reduce the complaints of X articles on a single topic hitting the Main Page in quick succession; it allows us to get a group of related articles on and off the Main Page without accusations of advertising/bias. Depending on the number of items in a multinom, it is acceptable for several editors to be involved, but each editor should at the least, give a complete review vis a vie one article (no partial article reviews). cmadler (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you've pre-empted me cmadler :) I'm inclined to agree with most of your points. My objection to the notion of individual checklists for each article in a multi is a practical one, which is that it would make for an unnecessarily long slab of text on what is already an extremely long page. As an experienced reviewer, I know that I personally don't need an individual checklist for every article in a multi and I'm sure there are plenty of other experienced editors who don't either. I'm inclined to agree though that it's acceptable for a QPQ reviewer to review one or some noms in a multi rather than all of them; in those circumstances, multiple checklists would make sense. Gatoclass (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Cmadler, you say, "As long as reviewers explicitly verify that they have checked each item, that is sufficient for the RfC." Do you mean like the old "All requirements check out; good to go."? If so, I'm afraid this can't possibly be what people were agreeing to in the RfC. The RfC text said explicitly, double-formatted thus, no two ways about it. That means that every aspect listed under the RfC text will need to be explicitly passed by a reviewer. QPQ reviewers could be said to have been "explicitly" saying all aspects pass from the beginning. But everyone at that RfC understood that has been totally unsatisfactory. Nor do I believe it is credible or practical for a QPQ or any other reviewer to state simply that all (11 or eight or whatever multitude of) DYK articles in a hook pass all of the DYK and site requirements ("I've checked them, I really have"). Tony (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the RFC did say "explicitly". Thanks for italicizing and underlining that word in case I missed it. Oh, wait, I also wrote explicitly in my comment, you must have missed it? Oh, wait, you quoted the part of my comment in which I wrote "explicitly". Well, perhaps, you just copy-and-pasted without considering the meaning, I'm not sure what other conclusion to draw here. cmadler (talk) 11:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Your RFC was a textbook breach of WP:POLL and its results are therefore unreliable. Also, I'm sure many of the support !votes were voting in favour of the general principle rather than a specific checklist. You yourself have conceded that the checklist may need more work, which undermines your assertion about the RFC results being set in stone. These issues need to be resolved by discussion, not by selective appeals to authority. Gatoclass (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

A view you've put before ("Your RFC was a textbook breach of WP:POLL and its results are therefore unreliable"), but what is it based on? The RfC text was set out in utter clarity: it provided the explicit checklist, proposing that it should be used in the nomination process. It was not a !vote on a general principle alone, or it would have been worded much less explicitly (I can write it out, if you want to see the difference). "the checklist may need more work"—yes, it's been debolded and tweaked here and there over the past week. And the introduction of coloured icons to the system wouldn't breach the faith of the participants in the RfC, I'd say. But could you specify the ways in which it's failing to encourage more detailed and thorough reviewing? Tony (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

A view you've put before

Yes, Tony, I've found that I have to repeat myself frequently in discussion with you since you often seem not to hear what I'm saying.

In regards to your poll, here are a couple of quotes from WP:POLL. It states that polls must be approached with caution because Editors might miss the best solution (or the best compromise) because it wasn't one of the options. This is especially problematic when there are complex or multiple issues involved. ... It is difficult to address objections that aren't stated, nor points which aren't made. It also states that every effort should be made to achieve consensus on the precise questions to be asked before starting a poll.

What effort did you make to achieve consensus on the wording of your poll Tony? How about none? What you basically did was present a binary choice between your preferred option and no change at all - in effect, excluding other alternatives. Now you are trying to use your push poll to hammer other users into submission. That simply isn't how things work at wikipedia. The project is about consensus building, not about framing debates in such a way as to effectively sideline alternative viewpoints. Gatoclass (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You know, as a general rule of thumb, if you find yourself arguing over whether or not there's a consensus to follow some new procedure—then there isn't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing CP and plagiarism: sandbox started

Given the excellent but rather scattered advice on this page and elsewhere concerning strategies and tools, I've now created a sandbox for working up centralised advice for reviewers of FAC, FLC, GA, DYK, OTD, ITN, and WikiProject assessments on these two problematic areas: Plagiarism and close paraphrasing: tips for reviewers. Your direct editing of that page, or feedback on the talk page, would be welcome. Tony (talk) 06:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, I've seen people on this project using "CP" for "child pornography" - best to avoid that two letter abbreviation to avoid embarrassed misunderstandings when someone is accused of posting one! Wnt (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"CP" can stand for a lot of things ... at WP:NRHP, where NHL has nothing to do with skates, for instance, we use it for contributing property. Daniel Case (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Moving DYK to a sub page

Look folks. I can see what is happening. A major increase in reviewing expectations and dramatic increase in the minimum standard for DYKs is putting a lot of people off which eventually I can see being led to DYK being scrapped. Whilst in principle I think Tony's reviewing introductions are very professional and an intelligent thought, I can also see many editors not willing to complete these forms and our DYK contribution/article expansions will suffer as a result. Already I know several prolific (decent) content contributors (not the average drongo you are thinking of Sandy) produce little to no content in the last week since this trouble and raise has been going on and the motivating factor is just not there for them anymore. What I am proposing is to link to DYK page from the main page and we restore the old easy going DYK but away from the pressures of the main page. Yes we ought to have a system which identifies plagiarism and non RS which is more effective in place but not to the point that nobody wants to nominate their article, however good, because they don't want to spent at least ten minutes doing detective work on other articles they simply do not care about. As somebody said it is an equilibrium which is needed with DYK between motivation and standards. Maybe some will argue that top standards for DYK will squeeze out any of the "lesser" contributors but I don't think the current set up is going to be successful in the long term. I'm as good a content writer if I put the effort in as anybody on wikipedia and I am put off with DYK being all "high and mighty". While that doesn't mean I'm lazy, it means creating and promoting is supposed to be enjoyable; spending over 10 minutes doing detective work on articles I probably care little for it not fun. DYKs for all of their flaws in my view are a net plus for the project if the obvious copyvios/non RS and POV issues are not present. I would rather spend the time reviewing GAs or writing them instead. I really think we should move it to a sub page and perhaps only the very best entries in a given week being permitted for the main page along with GAs. I would like to continue to contribute to DYK but not in the current environment. As I said before we could have a sub page dedicated entirely to DYK and organized by themes and could be made more fun than it currently is. If your article being on the front page is all that motivates you then I guess I'm very different to other DYK contributors. But I know when to cut my losses and I know that we could restore its enjoyment if we took away the pressures and expectations of front page material which I believe should be the top standard. Besides it would be more of an achievement for me to write an article to GA and then have it displayed on the front page for 12-24 hours. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to hand over your lunch money to the scary kids, but please stop campaigning to give away mine, because I happen to want to keep it myself. I'm glad you don't care about being on the front page, but I do. So I have no objection to having a subpage of subpar DYKs that you'd enjoy writing for, but there is no need to take my DYKs and Gerda's DYKs and Khazar's DYKs and Yngvadottir's DYKs off the front page just because it's easy to find examples of DYKs that were not excellent. (Comment by Sharktopus, who is now belatedly signing it) Sharktopus ^talk 16:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Two words Sharkpus, "broken record". The only thing I can think of is some kind of replacement for the "buzz" or "sharkgasm" some seem to get in having their article on the main page. Although I know that money is a big taboo on wikipedia I do know that it talks. Personally I think some system where if you expand say every 25 stubs or unsourced BLPs into reviewed start class articles you get a $5 Amazon voucher or something this would dramatically improve our poor content problem and might motivate people. I think the Wikimedia Foundation could raise the funds, say $1 million annually to reward those editors who develop stubs and BLPs into reviewed start/GA class articles. If we had a system where articles are formally reviewed for content and editors produce say every 25 of them which have been formally approved then I think we ought to have a mechanism to reward this. This I think would get more people to produce more decent content as they know that only after a formal review do they get their credit. I know there are several problems with a reward system but not as many as there are towards producing a half decent encyclopedia. Rewards work, and if we are serious about wanting to improve content across the site we need to offer stronger incentives to get editors to come up with the goods and not produce lousy DYK after DYK at bare minimum standard.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, it's the proposal so nice he made it twice.

Seriously, though, how many times do you need to throw the same proposal at the wall to see if it will stick? rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

(To clarify: this is a response to Dr. Blofeld's first comment above. The proposal in his second proposal is so crazy I don't believe it needs any response. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC))

Excuse me but this is not a proposal, it is a "OK reviewing standards have improved but many of the contributors have now lost interest, so what should we do?" With your outlook, then we'll never get the universal high quality encyclopedia we all desire and it will stay stuck full of crap articles which are untouched or uncared for. The reality is that many people who could potentially be improving our content simply won't because they is no incentive for them to do so. And why if wikipedia has a fundraising drive of $20 million couldn't it be extended slightly to invest back into the project and get people to do things nobody else is willing to do. Why is this website so extremely opposed to anything with a value attached to it? Maybe if we actually fed something into the project we'd get more out of it in return. Why would it be so crazy to reward an editor with small amount after producing 25 reviewed good articles which have been checked and authorized for main page coverage? We all want to see content dramatically improved but it is simply fantasy to expect everybody to develop every article for nothing and for quality to be more even. You are missing one vital thing here is that why should anybody care about doing detective work on other people's articles for free just to get a DYK hook? Its a tall order; at least with GA and FA the incentive is there for it to be recognized as a quality article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Except that there are no routine checks for plagiarism at FAC/GAN either. Nor at ITN or OTD. DYK alone has been singled out for criticism because some editors want to turn it into an elite exercise which showcases WP's best content rather than its newest. What you are right about is that WP is a volunteer project which people do for fun, and if you make everything a chore you won't have any volunteers or any content. Gatoclass (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken. First, there are routine checks at FAC- an article isn't promoted without spotchecks. Next, let's not forget how this began - one editor challenged another to find plagiarism or whatever in a DYK during a late night conversation. Then the world exploded and 3000 posts later we find that plagiarised material is still being put on the main page. I think it would be better to separate the issue of plagiarism from the issue of dyk entirely. Plagiarism/copyvio is a real threat to the project and should be taken seriously. If people here don't want to check for it, find a subgroup to check only for that. I'll volunteer to do a few check each day. Although I have some reservations about Tony's template (a lot of blue, for one thing) it has the benefit of allowing multiple people check a submission. If the copyvio section is left blank, then someone else can come along and look only for that. I'm not crazy about checking hooks, or checking expansion levels, but others who are much more experienced can do that, and not worry about the spotchecks. The caveat, of course, would be, that to make it into a queue, a submission has to have been spotchecked, by somebody, even if that involves pinging someone. Would that help at all? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Spotchecks? For FAC? You mean, even our featured article reviewers can't be bothered doing a thorough check for plagiarism? How does that square with the demands of certain users that no plagiarized material ever be allowed to sully the mainpage?

In any case, I think you are wrong. Sandy practically admitted to me a few days ago that there are no routine checks for plagiarism at FAC. But even if there were, there are still none at GAN, ITN and OTD. And of course, nobody has yet canvassed the issue of plagiarism in unbolded links on the mainpage. Gatoclass (talk) 04:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sandy practically admitted to me a few days ago that there are no routine checks for plagiarism at FAC. I have no idea what you're talking about, and I'm not sure you do either. This is wrong, period. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's this comment, particularly the statement that I have not passed a FAC (knowingly at least) since October 2010 without a copyvio check on each nominator, at least once...If a nominator is new or unknown to me, I won't pass their nomination without a sourcing check (and always by reviewers I know to be thorough). If a nominator is well known to me, and has proven over time to understand copyvio policy, I will not ask for repeat sourcing reviews. So, the process if not watertight, but considering the shortage of reviewers across the board at Wikipedia, we allocate our scarce sourcing reviewers optimally, I hope... cmadler (talk) 12:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I must be wrong then, or making up things, or dreaming or something. In any case, I think I'll unwatch this page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(e.c. response to Dr. Blofeld) Or more acceptable to the volunteer culture would be a system of prizes to motivate (start with one US$250 first prize, three × $100, and 10 × $50 Amazon vouchers from the Foundation, or possibly from a few foundation chapters—it's chicken-feed compared with what they throw money at, but the pay-off would be huge and could be integrated with school and university ambassadorial efforts—better than the current system, I say).

At my talk page, Dr. Blofeld has raised concerns about DYK contributors going on strike, as it were. If this is a necessary phase in reforming DYK, so be it. It's not as though we have a shortage of good DYK material to post on the main page, and I'd be looking at giving more adequate time-exposure to DYKs that nominators are keen to improve during the process: that would be a good motivational system, but it can only happen with a proper reviewing system. Tony (talk) 03:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I feel Tony that given our budget of $20 million this year? I think we could find that bit extra to invest a bit back into the project. If it would be too much to award editors for every good 25 articles they right, what about a monthly prize like that for the best article written in that month, say the best three articles like a Gold Prize, Silver Prize and Bronze Prize. Whilst this may be difficult if articles are collaborations you could work out what individual editors have contributed by their amount of referenced prose. Of course articles would need to be assessed to ensure that nobody has plagiarised or warbled on just to make their efforts look more respectable. Call me crazy, whatever, but in a way an Amazon award scheme could also work for wikipedia. If I won best article of the month or third best I would likely use an e-voucher to buy books to write articles. I think it could prove an effective scheme. I just feel we need to introduce things like this to just get editors more of a will to improve their articles and go that bit further.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Miscategorization of passed noms

Under the new system, passed nominations go into categories based on a month (e.g., Category:Passed DYK nominations from July 2011, Category:Passed DYK nominations from August 2011). My original intention was for these to be categorized based on the date for they were nominated, not the date they were actually nominated or the date they were promoted (e.g., in a hypothetical situation where some article is created on July 31, not nominated until August 5, and not promoted until September 1, the idea for it would be to be categorized as a "Passed DYK nomination from July 2011", not from August or September). This is not really what's happening right now (right now, for the most part, articles are getting categorized based on the date they were actually nominated, for reasons I will explain below). What I want to know is, is this a big problem (which may require an annoying solution), or do we not really care about what criterion is used for categorization?

The reason this is happening is as follows The instructions at T:TDYK#How to promote an accepted hook ask prep loaders to fill in the |monthyear= field on the nomination subpage when promoting--thus, in situations like the hypothetical one above, they could figure out that the article belongs in the July category and not the others, whereas the template currently would have a hard time figuring t hat out. I realize, though, that this is annoying to do and prep loaders easily forget to do it (which has happened a lot, hence my edits like these filling it in later; not meaning to single out any individual DYK volunteers, several have done it, and it's totally understandable--I forgot it myself all the time when I was testing these templates). Therefore, as a quick fix, I made the template fill out this information by itself at the time of nomination, based on the actual nomination date rather than the article creation date (because that is all that can really be gotten easily), along with a brief message asking prep loaders in the future to "please check this date and make sure it's right". (The idea was, filling out |monthyear= based on actual nomination date will be right most of the time, but wrong sometimes, as in the fake example I described above; nevertheless, having it as a guess would probably still be better than having nothing at all.) In actuality, though, I think prep loaders probably aren't checking the date (and I recognize that, like the previous solution, it's annoying to do and easy to forget); right now, Category:Passed DYK nominations from August 2011 has three noms, [1][2][3], all of which were created in July but actually nominated in August.

Now, this is only a problem if we really care about grouping articles based on creation/expansion date rather than nomination date. These categories are only there for some sort of vague archiving purposes (see my several messages about archiving above) so maybe this doesn't matter--we organize noms on T:TDYK by creation/expansion date because once upon a time that was relevant to whether the articles were considered "new" enough to go to the main page (although I think the project has been lax about that for a while), whereas that is not an issue where archiving is concerned. There are a few potential solutions I can think of, all more or less annoying, but if no one really cares about this problem then maybe it's better just to leave it the way it is. Any thoughts? rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this "problem" is so minor that, instead of asking Rjanag to do a boatload more work to fix it, we should expect that anybody curious the dates of creation or expansion could go to the article history. Many thanks to Rjanag for all the work already done! Sharktopus ^talk 19:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Mandatory reviewing

I just submitted Template talk:Did you know/Typhula quisquiliaris- do I still have to review another article? Am I expected to give it a more GAC-esque review than just a "good to go" or "too short by 100 bytes"? I couldn't see anything about this in the instructions, but I may have missed it. J Milburn (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have 5 or more DYK credits, you have to review. You are expected to fill the template but can just leave a signature where you endorse. I just did it myself for the first time. In the line about plagiarism I filled out "no pl" because if I say nothing I say "plagiarism", right, - found that surprising. As I said, you are "expected" to fill that out. I didn't try yet what happens if you don't, although I was tempted ... - What I also don't like about the many signatures: before this, I could easily search for remarks of a specific editor. That's hard once the person did 2 reviews, you search for a long time. I would prefer if not every single line had to be signed, just the whole review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide. cmadler (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

As an article writer and regular reviewer at GAC, FAC, FPC and elsewhere, let me just say that this is ridiculous. Hoops! Hoops everywhere! J Milburn (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, this might be ridiculous in your case, but most DYK reviewers aren't you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't get. GAC, FAC, FPC have a darn site more hoops to jump through. Soon, FACs will become like RfAs – then we'll all be laughing. ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• You don't have to do a review unless you have 5 or more DYK already. Anyway, I just reviewed yours and marked it gtg, so why not practice by doing some of the easy parts on a couple of other people's? Just review the hook, the article length, and the vintage. Those last two are very easy if you have the DYK tool installed. Sharktopus ^talk 02:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow!

I must say Ive only been visiting DYK recently to help with loading hooks and to nominate some articles, but I've failed to see the new project that has developed of re-designing the DYK project. I'm busy elsewhere and I cannot even contemplate reading all the debate above. I can only just about cope with keeping up with the changes you are making to the approval process. I must say you are losing me with the amount of reading required. I'm going to downgrade my involvement as I can't cope with the reading requirement. Do be careful you don't fillybust everyone. Good luck. Victuallers (talk) 11:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Support, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that Vic. Unfortunately, a number of proposals were made that have considerably extended the original discussion. I'm still hopeful we can sort things out in such a way that the process remains accessible to all, but I too have considerably less time to spend on Wikipedia right now due to to off-wiki commitments, so I may not be able to play as substantial a role in the ongoing debate as I'd prefer. Gatoclass (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure SandyGeorgia will be grinning from ear to ear when she reads this. Maybe she will want to put a userbox on her page. In the spirit of collaboration, I think I will design it for her:

[Faux userbox removed] Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Daniel, that is overly personalising the issue. Would you please consider removing that 'userbox'. I agree that the pace of change is a bit chaotic at the moment, but it would be better to focus on the actual discussions rather than making this personal. Carcharoth (talk) 03:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. That was one of those things that, a while later, I realized was a bit much. As William Blake said, the road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom. Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like I missed a good one, which may be a good thing :) This might be the time, though, to add that some folks don't seem to understand that copyvio is a violation of law, not just another of the frequent Wikipedia policies that are breached at DYK. I don't know why some people are so upset that some other people want this kind of editing to stop, or at least for DYK to stop encouraging and enabling it. At one time, DYK was thought of as an entry point for new editors, a place they could learn and where the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" would be engaged by anyone, but this isn't happening. Faulty stubs are created and almost never attended to, and if we are teaching editors, encouraging them, in fact enabling them to breach policy and break the law, we aren't helping either them or us. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your good wishes. My thrill at the moment is that the project/challenge I'm now running has created 1,000 articles and we have 14 DYKs and none of them were on the English Wikipedia. Oddly the other wikpedias "get it". Some people think the DYK project is to make nice stuff to go on the main page. Others think its an incestuous self congratulating club. Actually at its best it was a way to show what wikipedia was actually doing now, and helping each other with synergy and sympathy. I'm not going to feed trolls. They went last year, they may hopefully go away again. Victuallers (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Victuallers, I don't see much "helping each other with synergy and sympathy", because nominators have been tending to dump and run. You make comments and they rarely return to engage. Perhaps this will improve now that the nom pages can be individually watchlisted. The instructions don't even ask nominators and reviewers to watchlist and to expect to return. Tony (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Tony, did you leave a note on the nominator's talk page? That is what is usually done if there are problems that need addressing. There is a template around somewhere that is used specifically for this purpose. Do remember that new editors don't always edit or visit Wikipedia as often as those who have been around for a while. Carcharoth (talk) 03:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, step II of the instructions specifically says "Please watchlist your nomination page or check back for comments on your nomination. Responding to reasonable objections will help ensure that your article is listed." rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Which doesn't make pinging the editor's talk page any less practical or appropriate. I accidentally discovered today that a newbie asked me a question on a low-traffic article talk page about seventeen months ago. I certainly wish that someone had pinged me over it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that people shouldn't ping the editor's talk page (notice how my post was indented). I was responding to Tony's claim that the instructions don't ask people to watchlist the nomination. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see much "helping each other with synergy and sympathy" <--- I agree. I did say "at its best". Its been a while since DYK regulars used to fight over catching newbie articles to see who could be the first to nominate them. I know PFHLai was particularly good at it. (I thought (s)he was probably my best DYK editor of all time.) There were over 1,000 newbies who had their articles appear on the main page. (Lots of debate over 1500 chars as article max size. How many reviews are that short?) Someone above makes the points that copyvio is against the law. So it is..... and if we fix DYK then do we fix Wikipedia? Copyvios have got as far as approved FAs in the past. We are meant to be improving the Wikipedia. That is so important that we say you can break all rules to do it. I see the way to improve Wikipedia is to improve the editors. I do not think that continuing the whippings until morale improves is going to work. If you guys want to create a project to discuss this then I'm not sure that you are going to attract many newcomers. I'm worried that the DYK project knows that it is imperfact and is feeling guilty that it is imperfect. Everytime someone arrives to beat you up, you stop approving hooks because someone may be watching and spend your time here torturing yourselves over what can be done. Actually Wikipedia has suffered from being imperfect for 10 years now. DYK is meant to show new articles arriving on Wikipedia. This project is not telling the truth. Wikipedia is still creating rubbish articles that do not make the DYK nom process.... and we are still publishing COPYVIOs and you never see them here. I suspect you will get more COPYVIOs if the good practice on DYK is not spread widely. Stop feeling guilty. Leave this page to those who want to talk and return to the project that you enjoy (and has done valuable work to improve the Wikipedia.) </rant> Victuallers (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to discourage any reviewer from pinging a nominator's talk page: that kind of behaviour feeds the dump-and-run mentality that has infected DYK for so long. Nominators should expect to have to return to their nom page. Tony (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

What ever happened to collegiality? Actually, I think I know. In the past, I always left talk page notes with people whose DYK nominations I had found fault with, but in the confusingness of "the new remodelled DYK," I realize that I've forgotten to do so! --Orlady (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Another thread I fail to read fully, just the end. If I want to discuss a question with somebody, I simply go and ask, rules or not, the most natural thing in the world, I thought. What does "ping", "run", "dump", "infect" mean? Not my terms. I must have missed something, but perhaps that's good. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Productive people leaving the project

In July alone, and only the ones I noticed:

• 29 Khazar 50 DYK
• 29 Nvvchar 501 DYK
• 23 Mbz1 86 DYK
• 6 BarkingMoon 22 DYK (in 2 months)

No further comments here, but on their talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Gerda, many prolific contributors and reviewers have left DYK over the years for various unrelated reasons. This is to be taken philosophically; I wish they return, and some do (e.g. Calmer Waters). I do believe that the solution is to reform a collaborative group of DYK editors, as it was in the past - it was never perfect, but it was friendly and constructive. Thus my message to those who feel frustrated, let us stay together and collaborate. Regulars, like me :), who shift to other tasks, please do take this seriously, for either, we heal, now, as a team, or we will die as individuals. Materialscientist (talk) 07:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I would support that. How do we go about accomplishing this reformation of a collaborative group, M? Manxruler (talk) 09:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

My feeling from the "good old past" was the attitude, namely.

• Contributors: play straight - use reliable sources and avoid close paraphrasing. Do declare issues which you are unsure of when submitting the nom - reviewers might actually help there (with interpreting sources, providing new ones, assessing image copyrights, whatever). Remember that slipping problematic noms through the review may bring real problems when those problems are noticed later (and be sure, someone will notice). Personal trust has been an important part of the system, and those who intentionally misused that trust were just banned and/or blocked.
• Reviewers: aim at improving the article and hook, not at completing the review ASAP. Be polite and constructive - we all make trivial mistakes; propose solutions when you see them. I do believe that almost any nom can be rescued within a few days (with a few exceptions like duplicate article, article is already at 50k and expansion would violate WP:LENGTH, article was featured ITN, maybe some other cases) and thus almost never use the orange tick.
• Prep composers and hook editors: contact the nominator when significantly changing their hook. When you see something odd and are not sure about it (e.g. suspicious image copyright, hook phrasing, etc.), don't rely on ticks and don't rush. Leave a note at T:TDYK or WT:DYK and scroll to other noms.
• All parties: think of long-term goals, your reputation and the project in general. Be prepared to sacrifice a nom with a smile (e.g. if notability or sources are dubious and there is no easy way out, etc.). Materialscientist (talk) 10:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for these good suggestions. I have a simple practical idea to add. Do DYK reviews when you have time to spare, and keep a list so you have some "in reserve." That way, when your own wonderful DYK nomination is ready, you can quickly post it, linking to a review you already did. Sharktopus ^talk 02:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I commend Materialscientist's suggestions, which I believe is just about what we need to put things back on track. Further, I think Sharktopus has a good idea with regards to the review reserves. Manxruler (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Update: of the four mentioned, one archived, so kind of returned. Thanks, Dr. Blofeld, for the encouragement to do so which you extended to all, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Good to hear that contributions are valuable, even invaluable, every now and then, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC) The talk was restored. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Admins moving hooks from prep to queue: should they have to do this?

See my first message at #Record of promotion from prep to queue (you don't need to read the rest of that thread, it's not relevant to this issue). I'd like to get consensus here before I start asking people to do this. If anyone thinks this is a bad idea, I'd appreciate the feedback. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The history of the individual nom templates should show who moved the hook to prep. Uncovering this would take very little effort on the part of the person interested (it's normally going to be the last entry), whereas having the promoter re-editing the template just so the record appeared on the same page as the nom thread seems likely to be a lot more effort for little benefit. See the history of your example: it's very easy to see who moved it to prep, even after your fixes. The thing that made it easy to track the nomination history was breaking out the list to individual nomination pages; this enhancement really isn't necessary. Yomangani^talk 02:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree finding the person who promoted the prep to queue is quite simple. The problem is some others, including experienced editors, don't seem to think so--or at least they don't want to spend the time to look through the prep history and find that information. I also suggested above that this extra step might be a way to make sure admins review each nom before moving to queue. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it likely that adding another level of bureaucracy would further discourage those considering doing the moves without strengthening the review process itself. In checking the history of the nomination subpage, we are talking about one click on the "History" tab for a few articles. In adding a statement on the nomination subpage, we are talking about navigating back and forth, editing, previewing, saving on every nomination (when to be honest, anybody doing a serious investigation of the history of a nomination should probably click on the history tab anyway). With only a couple of editors brave enough to move articles to prep, let's not give them any other reasons to wish to stop doing so. Yomangani^talk 10:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Yomangani's comments above. Loading an update into the queue is already quite time-consuming, because of the need to download/upload images and then protect them. It's too much to ask of queue fillers to sign off on each individual hook as well. A better way to track the uploader IMO would simply be for the DYKbot to record the uploader's nic when posting the update to the mainpage.

I'm inclined to support the notion of adding a link to the nom discussion page to updates so that updaters can review the nom discussion, but only so long as it can be done without too much extra complication. Gatoclass (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove this from the template for now. You guys have both raised some good points about why it may not be a good idea, and the only editor who seemed to want it a lot doesn't care anymore. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Other things

T:TDYK to prep

Could more non-administrators be convinced to move nominations from T:TDYK to the prep areas? Or have I misunderstood and that's not allowed? It's a lengthy process to read through every discussion, check every article, move every picture and then add it to the prep area, let alone what needs to be done when moving it to the queue. Especially seeing as very few administrators seem to be active on this (and given the current dramatic status and fall out of a single mistake I'm unsurprised). Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 01:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Re Paynd: anyone is allowed to move nominations from T:TDYK to the prep areas. Moving from prep to queues can only be done by admins because the queues are protected. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense. Can we encourage editors to do so in any way? And I've noticed that most errors that are hard to spot are picked up in the prep areas rather than anywhere else. Would it be prudent to have more of them so that nominations are held in their longer? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 02:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Making more queue pages is trivial (just a matter of copying the code from one of the old ones into a new page, and updating {{DYKbox}} and T:TDYK/Q accordingly with links to the new prep. I don't really see any drawbacks to having like 10 of them, if someone wants to do that. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The drawback is that errors are more difficult to spot when the hook is separated from its review. For this reason, I have always advocated keeping noms at T:TDYK rather than preps. Materialscientist (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hooks have to get separated from their reviews eventually if they're ever going to the main page. I don't really see any feasible alternatives to the way things are already done. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I've actually noticed that most of the errors which are most difficult to spot are picked up on the prep pages, where people are more likely to look at them with a fresh pair of eyes (rather than reading through the lengthy comments). Could just be me who thinks this but a clean up of T:TDYK, making it easier to peruse, would also work. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Links to nom subpages from prep

I have noted in the past that it would be helpful to have some efficient way of viewing the nomination discussion when reviewing the prep area to the queues. The last time I updated a couple of queues it took about an hour a piece. Some believe it is a quick copy, paste, upload the commons picture to Wikipedia and protecting it. If done properly it is not. As I discussed with Materialscientist recently, it's the double checking of all the hooks, random verification of sources in addition to the hook, relying on those preparing the preps to have hopefully have done a double check on verifying the nomination also, copy editing both hooks and articles, searching through the history for the nomination discussion for possible problems, adherence to the rule of DYK, various other guidelines, and policies, etc. Not a job for any drive by administrator action to satisfy empty queues quickly. The core administrators that are versed in doing these are not as active and can't blame them. Some do not like seeing empty queues, but IMO, the faster we move hooks from nomination --> prep ---> protected queue the higher the likelihood of errors. Calmer Waters 01:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Re Calmer Waters: hopefully viewing the nomination discussion will be easier once all nominations discussions are preserved on subpages. As for my request for feedback, should I understand your comment as implying that you have to look at the subpage anyway, so signing off on the line at the bottom (indicating that you promoted it to queue) wouldn't be much extra work? rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I misunderstood the question. No, It wouldn't be any trouble at all IMO, I wouldn't mind. Added accountability that takes little additional effort. Calmer Waters 02:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually this would be archiving purposes right? So one can view who promoted the preps after the fact (days later). I was just addressing the need to be able to access the nomination discussion from the point of the promoting admin that may have not seen the prior discussions and points raised and debated. If the sub pages address that then great. Anything other than searching for the last edit made to the nom on the mammoth history page would be helpful for greater review ability. Calmer Waters 02:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Now that DYK noms all have their own pages, it would be helpful for those wanting to scrutinise these entries/blurbs if the prep area had links to these nom pages. Then, as the action is usually noted, anyone can click on the nom to see who moved it to prep. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Re Calmer Waters and Ohconfucius: anyone is welcome to suggest a prep area format which includes direct links to the nomination subpages. The easiest thing might be to just add the link in the {{DYKmake}} template, so that prep preparers don't need to do any extra copying and pasting. Anyway that is tangential to the point that I raised in this section. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

How about something like this. It would work with the changes you have made and I could clean it up to make it prep loader friendly Calmer Waters 05:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. It would require prep loaders to copy-paste in one extra piece of information, which might be annoying, but I think that might be unavoidable. The {{DYKmake}} solution I proposed above won't work for multi-noms or noms whose subpage names don't match the name of the article being nominated (a minority of nominations, to be sure, but people still screw up their nominations rather often). rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, I think my suggestion (automatic links to subpages in {{DYKmake}}) might still be better, despite the times when it won't work. Overall, compared to User:Calmer Waters/Sandbox5 it would be a drastic reduction in the amount of clicking and pasting that prep loaders need to do, and in the rare cases when it doesn't work (i.e., multi-noms and incorrectly formatted noms) prep loaders could still find the subpage in the same way they would now. I will go ahead and make a mock-up in a moment. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is an example of what I mean. The exact placement of the (view nom) link (e.g., it could be right after the article title instead of at the end of the line, or the article title could link directly to that instead of to the article, since a link to the article is not really necessary) is open to discussion. Notice that it only creates a link when the nom subpage actually exists (so it won't create broken links in the cases I mentioned above; people looking at the prep can find those themselves); the proportion of {{DYKnom}} templates that successfully make a link to the nom subpage will be higher after we get all the old noms off T:TDYK (since right now we're still in transition between the new and old systems). rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice. Even for the few times it may not work, I think it would be helpful for the minority of the times it does (especially when all new hooks start on sub-pages. Calmer Waters 17:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. The article name in the credits now links to the nomination subpage, in cases where there is a nomination subpage; in cases where the article name doesn't match the subpage name (described above) no link is created, but it should be easy enough to find anyway. I replaced the link to the article itself, because I don't see a need for it (such a link is already present in the hook). rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No, there is absolutely a very important need for a link to the DYKmake article. For a DYKmake with an incorrect article title, it should display in red, indicating a problem. For example, I just happened to spot a problem in Prep 1, but it would have been much more obvious, and probably fixed while the set was being prepared, if it had been red. The bot has been broken by such problems before. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Does this look better? (See Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4#Credits for examples.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Much better! Thanks. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Other recording

Would it be too bureaucratic to record in a centralised location who moves a nom to prep, and who moves it from there to a queue? Tony (talk) 03:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Or even if "promoting" editors signed their name on the nom page where the slot is marked "Promoted"? Tony (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The "centralized location" is the nomination subpage itself, I assume. I don't see a need to record that information anywhere else.

As for editors who promote an article to prep signing their names...I don't see why that is necessary. It's very easy to find that information by checking the edit history; the promoter should be the last (or near-last) edit. If people really want their signature to show up on the nom page itself, I can make the template do that automatically. What I can't automate is signing by the editors who move articles from prep to queue (since that is done without actually editing the nomination subpage), which is why I came here to ask for feedback about that point specifically--Yomangani seems to be the only editor so far who has any comments about this matter. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, the following may have said above, no time to read all that: for my private record I started taking a link to the nom-subpage to the article's talk (for example), where it is also easy to find for someone checking preps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes! I've suggested several times that a notification of DYK nomination and a link to the DYK review should be mandatory. I continue to feel very strongly about these points! cmadler (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Running low on approved hooks?

Perhaps we should consider posting fewer hooks per update soon? 5 or 6 hooks depending on hook length? (I won't be around much till the weekend, so someone pls keep an eye on this. Thanks.) --PFHLai (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the recent changes to the project requiring extensive reviews has discouraged nominations and reviews. We may have raised the bar too high.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to sort through a few tonight (finished four reviews). I second the suggestion that we cut back the number of hooks or extend the rotation period for now. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There are still 63 verified hooks at T:TDYK, I don't see how this can be described as "running low". Gatoclass (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, Gatoclass, how do you get the number 63? The number at Wikipedia:Did you know/DYK hook count was last updated on July 24th. It was intentionally 'frozen'. --PFHLai (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, missed that. If you are running short of noms, I would go to an eight-hour (or if necessary longer) cycle rather than reduce the number of hooks per update. Gatoclass (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

6 hooks per set for now

I have trimmed the number of hooks in all 6 DYKQs to 6 hooks/set. According to preview, all 6 sets will occupy 16 lines on my monitor screen, instead of 18~19 lines before I moved out a hook. The removed hooks are now in Preps 3 or 4. The current set of hooks on MainPage (posted by the bot an hour ago) also occupies 16 lines on my monitor screen. I hope this means that if there is left-right imbalance on MainPage over the next 2 days, it's not because DYK has changed drastically. Let's stick with 6 hooks per set for now. Unless we have very wordy hooks, posting fewer than 6 hooks may lead to layout issues on MainPage. Time-wise, we are updating at almost 8-hour intervals already. Hopefully the nom supply will recover soon. Otherwise, we'll have to try updating at 12-hour intervals. --PFHLai (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

To put it bluntly, discouraging (hopefully bad) nominations is a GOOD THING. The main problem for DYK is the sheer volume of articles that needs to be checked which results in all kinds of problems slipping through and appearing on the main page. If the number of potential articles/hooks goes down sufficiently then we could go to a 12 hour feature. Which would also be a good thing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to register my concern that this is a symptom of newbie editors being discouraged from submitting their articles due to the new complexity of the system. We want to discourage bad noms but we don't want to do it at the expense of encouraging editors to edit. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 01:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Well said, Panyd. VM-you should uppercase HOPEFULLY BAD too. The discouragment of submission that was oh so predictable will discourage good and poor noms. I'm not submitting anything to DYK any more for the very reason mentioned here. PumpkinSky talk 01:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

IMO the downturn in verifications is just a blip that will pass in time. People are intimidated from participation ATM because of all the criticism, the acrimony, and because too many changes have been implemented too quickly and without sufficient consideration. Once the issues are properly addressed and the new system is embedded, I think we will see participation picking up again. Gatoclass (talk) 03:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope you're right Gatoclass. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Nelson Story

Who passed this, currently on the main page? It was this long in February & looks less than twice that now. Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It was moved from userspace recently. Materialscientist (talk) 04:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

We're still getting questions about "who passed this"? I'm glad to know the fancy new system for taking care of that issue is being put to good use. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, missed that in the edit history, & I haven't been keeping up with recent developments. That looks very nice, once one knows it is there, and how to find it. Johnbod (talk) 11:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

How about adding a link to the hook discussion to the DYKmake/DYKnom templates? Then people could quickly check the discussion from the article's talk page. I did suggest this earlier but I think it got lost amid the avalanche of posts. Gatoclass (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I can look into it soon. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. The article talkpage tag and creator/nominator user talkpage credits now contain links to the nomination subpages; see, e.g., Talk:Gloria (Handel). This is subject to the same caveats I pointed out for my recent additions to the prep area stuff (described at #Links to nom subpages from prep). Specifically, a link to the nom subpage will automatically be created if the nom subpage has the same name as the article (e.g., a credit tag placed on Talk:Stuff will only create a link to the nom subpage if the nom subpage was indeed Template talk:Did you know/Stuff). Therefore, it won't happen for a) multi-noms, and b) noms that were incorrectly formatted (e.g., if someone nominated Stuff at Template talk:Did you know/Stuf or Template talk:Did you know/My latest). For those cases, anyone can add |nompage= to the {{dyktalk}} template on the talk page, or to the preloaded template in creator/nominator credits, to make the link appear. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Good, thank you! For the nom with three articles Paul Speratus etc I did it manually before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, there are some obvious problems with this method though. Would it be possible for the DYKnom/make fields to just take the name of the discussion page, even if it's "wrong"? Once a link is there on the article discussion page, it probably won't matter a lot if the page doesn't have the correct name because people will be able to easily find it anyway. Gatoclass (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You mean create the redlink in the cases described above. It's possible, although I'm not sure it's better than not linking at all. I guess it informs the reader that there is a nomination discussion somewhere.

Another option might be, in cases where it's going to be wrong, just link to that day of T:TDYK or the archive page. Those are difficult to search through, though (since the discussion is rolled up after the article is promoted). rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the nom, surely instead of Who passed this? the question should have been What am I missing here? Seems like it would be nicer! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 11:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If I'd known the answer, I wouldn't have asked the question! Johnbod (talk) 11:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm still confused. I don't see much difference between what was on the page and what was brought from the sandbox. I can't see the 5 x expansion. I think it's a valid question. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The clock only starts when it hits article space; you can take as long as you like in a sandbox. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec, same thing) Looking at the history, it was developed by several editors in user space and moved to Article space as a NEW article on 24 July. DYKcheck doesn't know such things, you have to look yourself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

So you can sandbox a page, make one or two minimal changes, and then unsandbox and submit to DYK? That doesn't seem at all right. I'm coming to the conclusion that I'm working much too hard around here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

@Gerda - Where's the five time expansion here and again here. Johnbod's obviously right; it was sandboxed, minimal changes made and copied over, the sandbox deleted, and submitted to DYK. Seems wrong to me. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Here I say NEW and you ask me about expansion??? I say user space and you say sandbox??? The answer is below. Thank all of you who added to it, I saw the question only now. Sometimes I'm just editing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes I like more than anything in the world to be just editing. I understand now. But at first glance I understand why Johnbod asked. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Understand. But I thought we were well beyond first glance by what was written above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No. There was no prior articlespace version of this. It was created in userspace on January 29, went through more than 100 edits in userspace over nearly 6 months, and was moved to articlespace -- where there was no prior article -- on July 24, making it a new article on that date. Everything you see in the edit history before the move to articlespace was in userspace. cmadler (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Truthkeeper, what gives you the idea that this was ever moved from article space to user space? There is only one move in the edit history (from user space to article space). The earliest versions of the article look like sandbox drafts. The nominator stated at the beginning of Template talk:Did you know/Nelson Story that it was a new article freshly moved from userspace (what's the use of the new subpage and archiving system if you guys don't bother looking at the nom page to find answers to your questions?). I don't see what's so difficult to understand here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. It was moved with [this edit], which left an automatic edit summary. That indicates that beforehand it was empty space. If this were a copy and paste move over something that already existed, that would be inadmissable. But for the purposes of DYK, article age is based on time in article space, which would be counted from July 24. Everything before that was in userspace and not considered for DYK. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologize. I misread. I've struck my comments. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Question about removing rejected hooks

Just wondering about this edit [4]. Where do these go? Are they archived, or do they simply go puff into thin air? I think it's good to have them hanging around to see the issues. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That was under the old system, so it's poof into thin air. The new ones would be archived with categories. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Although, obviously, it remains in the page history forever. But this was part of the impetus for the recent switch to transcluded sub-pages for nominations. cmadler (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

See #Record of promotion from prep to queue for a description of how nominations will be archived under the new system. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Problem that may recur: class project to submit DYK articles on psychology topics

Several DYK submissions of unusually poor quality (e.g. Optimalism, Nervous laughter, and Highway hypnosis) came from a psych class project promoted by MTHarden. Illusion of transparency was another unsuitable article from the same group, abandoned by its author when the course ended but rescued by Yngvadottir's rewriting it: Template_talk:Did_you_know#Illusion_of_transparency.

This class handout on submitting an article to DYK[5] and this course description[6] suggest we can expect more novice DYK submissions on psychology-related topics in Week 7 of the next Psych Intro course taught at St. Charles Community College. I don't think we should reject "class project" articles out of hand, but being alerted when we get a crop of them from the same group would be useful to reviewers. Sharktopus ^talk 13:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If the professor has a page, I'd suggest dropping a note there, explaining the problems. Not all professors understand our system entirely. I have my own opinions about asking students to submit to DYK - which I'll keep to myself. At any rate, if it clogs an already overburdened pipeline, it should be pointed out to the professor. Also if the professor is grading based on whether an article was "approved" or not, is relevant, imo. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Please be sure anyone reviewing these is aware of WP:MEDRS; I can't possibly follow all of DYK, but if you need me to look into one of these nominations, please ping my talk-- this sounds like the kind of editing that requires early intervention and education.[7] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. We'd have to pay extra attention to any projects coming our way, and notification would be nice. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If the professor is not already participating in it, it could be useful to point him/her to WP:SUP which both has helpful advice for professors giving these sorts of assignments and helps us keep track of such projects. LadyofShalott 03:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Billy Hathorn

Since several recent articles submitted by this user have been found to include examples of close paraphrasing, all his submissions will need to be thoroughly checked against their sources before being promoted. As a precautionary measure I have tagged all his current submissions at T:TDYK while this issue is under investigation. Gatoclass (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Two articles need to be removed (from the queues and preps respectively) for double checking, as I've mentioned above. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I've done that, and returned them to the top of T:TDK until someone finds time to check them. Gatoclass (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit alarming to discover just how old this problem is and how little has changed: this has been going on for years, DYK has known about it for years and done nothing about it:

• Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_34#User:Billy_Hathorn
• Misc

or the other sourcing issues:

• Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_32#Proposed_rule_change

Perhaps someone here understands 1) why DYK has allowed this to continue, when it was a known problem, and 2) why there have been no sanctions? Who cleans up all the DYK-enabled plagiarism now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I explained how it happened, in my case at least, at the bottom of this RfC discussion about the "proper checklist" proposal. In short, the DYK criteria currently encourages meeting specific bars for length and newness, at the expense of quality; it's quantity over quality. A major overhaul of DYK's mission and criteria are urgently needed. NickDupree (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The proposed rule change in Archive 32 appears to have been rejected on the basis that, per WP:RS, a source need not always be independent/third-party; in some cases (limited, to be true) a primary or self-published source is suitable. Other concerns raised in that discussion have been since addressed. For example, DYK requires the entire article to be sourced with in-line citations (rule of thumb: at least 1 per paragraph). It might seem obvious that all sources should be reliable sources, but we've recently explicitly added that to the DYK rules. The section about Billy Hathorn in Archive 34 appears to concern his failure to cite reliable sources, which is both a DYK problem (that such articles were allowed through) and a Wikipedia problem (that such articles exist at all). As I mentioned, we've recently added an explicit statement in the DYK rules that sources must be reliable. There appears to be no mention at that time of any concern about plagiarism or close paraphrasing; in fact, one editor wrote, "Billy, your composition is not being disputed. The reliability of the IMDB source is unacceptable." The only mention of plagiarism or close paraphrasing by Billy Hathorn was by Iridescent, eight months ago, on his/r own talk page -- hardly evidence that "DYK has known about it for years and done nothing."

Don't get me wrong, I'm by no means suggesting that this is acceptable. Billy Hathorn is a long-time editor who should absolutely know better. I haven't checked those articles myself, but accepting your word that they contain plagiarism and/or close paraphrasing (I assume you hatnoted them as such), I'd favor a strongly worded warning to the user indicating that if he submits any further such article, no matter how much time passes, he will be (duration?) topic-banned from DYK. As for the reviewer(s) who gave approvals, I don't know. As a start, if they have nominations in Prep/Queue/Nominations pages, we may want to pull/reject 1 nomination per bad review. cmadler (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

As can be seen from the 2008 thread, Billy's use of substandard sources is a very longstanding problem, not just for DYK but for the project as a whole. His submissions here always require additonal scrutiny for their sourcing, and in my experience that usually happens. I've seen quite a few of his submissions get rejected for poor sourcing.

I haven't been very active on Wikipedia at all for the last eight months due to RL issues, and have had little participation here, but it seems clear that Billy is currently submitting a large number of articles and it appears he is cutting corners by lifting phrases almost unchanged from source. Obviously he is not getting the close paraphrasing issue and that needs to be pointed out to him. His employment of substandard sources is unfortunately a chronic problem and reviewers just have to remain aware of it. Gatoclass (talk) 05:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

But how are new reviewers (of which there should be a fair number, after all this process is partly to encourage newer contributors) going to know that they have to remain aware of that - especially after all this gets archived away? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Cmadler's response seems more to the point. There is no way we should be giving people license to throw dubious content against the DYK process over and over and over. If they aren't stopped and sanctioned appropriately, this scene will continue to play out year after year. Choess (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about other reviewers, but ever since 2008 what I did when I encountered Billy's reviews was basically take a zero-tolerance approach: if I saw any thing questionable (whether it be reliability of sourcing, close paraphrase issues, questionable notability, etc.) I just failed the nom without discussion, knowing that Billy already knows better and that he rarely makes a wholehearted attempt to respond to concerns. However, I don't think I ever sought anything more than this (blanket sanctions over all his nominations or anything) because occasionally one or two of his nominations didn't have glaring problems like that. Of course, given that most of the reviewers at DYK are newbies, they don't all know Billy's history and thus probably won't adopt the same zero-tolerance attitude towards his noms, so maybe the time has come to impose more formal restrictions on him. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

My attitude has always been that Billy is a prolific contributor to Wikipedia in spite of his issues with sourcing and that I'd hate to do anything to discourage his participation. The close paraphrasing is an additonal concern however - I found a disturbing amount of it in an article of his I looked at yesterday. Billy needs to be made clear that this kind of thing is totally unacceptable and that he must put things in his own words and not simply lift phrases from his sources. If he can't comply with that as a requirement, then clearly further steps will need to be taken. Gatoclass (talk) 03:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Given the level of ongoing copyvio/close paraphrasing coming from this editor, I wonder if Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations might be the way to go. Even failing the nominations seems insufficient, as someone needs to clean up the mess (or it will remain a problem on Wikipedia -- just not at DYK), and Billy's continued addition of this sort of material needs to stop. (I say this having just come across more such problematic material in Hunter Greene, another DYK nomination by Billy.) cmadler (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Billy is a prolific contributor to Wikipedia in spite of his issues with sourcing and that I'd hate to do anything to discourage his participation. The close paraphrasing is an additonal concern. Perhaps there is a chance that just one or two are not problematic, making his contributions worthwhile. Would it be any less acceptable if we had a bot that prolifically creates articles by copying from one or other external source? From what I read here, it seems that the community is waking up to the fact that Billy might be becoming a liability instead of an asset to the project. A copyright investigation may well be in order; perhaps also a 6-month ban on DYKs ought to accompany that. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• In continuing to check the sources of Hunter Greene, it appears to me that sources 7 & 12 in that article both contain cut-and-paste copyvios from Mr. Greene's own website. Of course, it's not Wikipedia's problem, except that in the case of source 7, the cut-and-paste copyvio contains the material being cited here (and in that case, I think it's material that we could reasonably just site to his own website or cut from the article: information about his religious and sporting activities), but it raises concerns about the reliability of two more sources in this article. We are nearing the point where, if not for WP:POLITICIAN, he might be considered non-notable. cmadler (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I've also rejected Alan Seabaugh for extremely close paraphrasing verging on cut-and-paste. The "Background" section of the article follows his law firm bio in both structure and often wording. I will probably request a Contributor copyright investigation tomorrow. cmadler (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

When I used to be more involved in reviewing hooks, I always gritted my teeth when I encountered Billy's. I totally agree with Gatoclass that his contributions are a net positive, but I often either had to say as gently as possible that sometimes they were dull hooks, not quite in accord with the source, or I rewrote them a little bit to avoid the close paraphrasing issues (Reviewers in the Old Days used to be more willing to do rewrite work on an article ... perhaps that could be more strongly encouraged?) Daniel Case (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• As promised, I've requested a CCI on Billy. See Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Billy Hathorn. cmadler (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you for doing that. I'm two days behind, but just checked about half a dozen his most recent edits, and while a CCI is in order, the sourcing issues are also a very big concern. IMO, this person should not be editing Wikipedia at all, and ANI is where this should be.

    The DYK issue is, why did all of you allow this to continue? We have more than hundreds of articles which need to be basically gutted, and why are any of you saying he is a net positive? Based on the articles I just looked at, there is almost nothing salvageable of this person's edits.

    The much bigger problem is that, at DYK, it's Billy Hatorn this week, someone else next week, someone else last month, someone else last year, but there have ALWAYS existed editors who are enabled to continue by the reward of DYK, and DYK has never picked them up. This is a recurring, systemic problem-- Billy Hathorn is only the latest example. How many of you here can even name the top DYK editor who was a serial plagiarized for years, creating 100s of DYKs? I'll wager none of you can :/

    Even if more stringent review standards, and an elimination of QPQ, is put in place, without a directorate or accountability, what will get DYK to stop being the feeding ground where this kind of editing is enabled and encouraged? Who will be responsible? Look how long you all let this go on, look how many purely garbage articles were created, and who is going to clean it all up? I checked about half a dozen articles and didn't find much besides garbage. Why was this not taken to ANI years ago, why were sanctions not put in place, given the number of DYK editors who knew this was going on, and yet this editor continued to get DYKs? There is a systemic problem at DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

    • I'm not really that familiar with ANI; it says that it's not the appropriate venue for content disputes, which is what I think sourcing is, so I'm hesitant to take this there. If you think that's the place, feel free to open a discussion there and I'll chime in. cmadler (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
      • It's not a content dispute, it's a long-standing behavioral dispute-- he doesn't/hasn't acknowledged or addressed past issues. If I ever get caught up (which is unlikely to be today), I'll start the ANI myself. DYK hasn't addressed the issues, so outside admin involvement may help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"IMO, this person should not be editing Wikipedia at all". Sandy, a real Wikipedian would be asking themselves and the community how they could help Billy out, not stating their intention to run him off the site. Once again, you have gone out of your way to demonstrate withering, icy contempt for not only Billy but all of us, no matter how involved we are or not, who believe DYK to be a valuable part of the Main Page despite its imperfections. Daniel Case (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong on too many levels to address. It is abundantly clear that he hasn't addressed these issues for many years, but right now I'm more concerned about the systemic issues prevalent at DYK than addressing one symptom (one editor) that DYK enables, when this one editor is merely the latest in a long string.. Rather than dissing me, why don't one of YOU deal with the issues YOU have created. Yes, DYK has a long-standing systemic problem; no, it shouldn't be on the mainpage until/unless these issues are addressed, and neither should other editors be responsible for addressing and cleaning up DYK-enabled messes. Have you taken a look at the length of the CCI page? Who's going to clean up all of the Hathorn articles, and why didn't you all put an end to this years ago? You've known about it for how many years now ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

We need to know what lessons can be learned from this to enable DYK to identify and monitor problem cases at an earlier stage. The closer reviewer procedures being rolled out now might be a start, but only a start. Do you have any suggestions, Daniel? It is very serious when such flagrant breaches slide under the radar with great ease for a lengthy period. Is "icy contempt" an interpretation of the frustration that dedicated WPians are likely to feel when they see systemic problems unaddressed for years? Other editors have been indeffed for relatively trivial breaches. Tony (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Tony, you have earned my reply to you, not her, because she has done nothing except continue more of the same shrill whining and broad-brushed insult. You are still assuming good faith ... I think I can no say I no longer assume good faith on her part regarding this issue since she demonstrates a complete, almost willful, lack of awareness as to how she comes off.

Perhaps I would be on better grounds offering suggestions had I not reduced my involvement with DYK two years ago when I was writing a book and, well, in the name of time management, one of my usual warm-up tasks had to go. Conveniently, it happened around the time we were automating so much of the process which, as I have said, is part of the problem since that reduced a lot of human involvement which was keyer to catching these things. It might work to go back to that, but anyone who remembers how chaotic DYK used to be doesn't want to do that (And, I admit, back then no one treated it as some sort of quantitative index of their editorial skills. However, that genie's not going back in the bottle, either).

I'm not objecting to the review checklist, bureaucratic as it is in some respects, because it will be an improvement ... although I just realized I'm going to have to set aside a half-hour for a review under my first submission after it went live since it will be my responsibility to review not only the hook but the entire article for possible plagiarism (for which, presumably, it will be my fault as a reviewer if it lifts from proprietary, closed sources (cf. Spears, Carol) that I don't have access to, or God forbid offline ones in libraries half a world away, because if I don't do this I will be barred from submitting new DYK noms for ... two weeks, or some other indeterminate time frame, no matter how extensive and proctological I was. And then, should I find plagiarism, I am supposed to ... what? Rewrite it? Publicly call out an editor I know nothing about who might be new to this and believe that "everyone can edit" but who never had the benefit of having this plagiarism thing properly explained to him or her in school?

"It is very serious when such flagrant breaches slide under the radar with great ease for a lengthy period" ... agreed, but this is hardly unique to DYK, it's a Wikipediawide problem. I'm sure you find as much of the mess as I do that, unfortunately, I have little time to fix beyond a tag and some quick edits.

Yes, it's obvious Sandy's frustrated, but she shouldn't be writing with that frustration; I'd prefer if she used her cool intellect and perhaps did a little more research on who the problematic reviewers/nominators are and who aren't. Anyone with as much knowledge as she claims to have about these problems ought to be specific rather than use this as some sort of platform for self-aggrandizement ... her continued refusal to do so is sending a message that she's not going to be possible to please.

What we really need is not some sort of DYK directorate but a Main Page directorate ... I mean, we've had our share of atrocious FA blurbs which none of the regulars there seem to have been too concerned about. Daniel Case (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting tangent, Daniel Case, but it's not at all clear why I-- or any other editor-- should be required to spend my time documenting what I already know about a system that uses no archives and requires outsiders to search diff by diff to understand where the faults are occurring. I don't think any review list will accomplish anything, since so many regulars here don't seem to know Wikipedia policies, and there is no accountability and no method for tracking the hundreds of deficient articles that are created as a direct result of this process. And I have been *quite* specific, but thank you anyway. Perhaps at some point someone will explain to me why DYK has gotten worse on the score of padding of articles with non-reliable sources so the expansion crit. can be met. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, for once, you drop the snideness and I actually feel like replying :-). I have felt for a while that we needed to archive the noms the same way we've done with FAs, FARs PRs ans GAs, as some discussions were becoming expansive enough to have identified issues with the articles that future editors might like to have a record of (In fact, we should have done it at the time that noms were accorded their own sections. But at that point I was not really involved in setting policy anymore, since as I said I stopped making bulk reviews back in 2009 for a variety of reasons). I'm glad we are finally starting ... this will make it easier to catch issues like those you have been concerned about.

As for your second point, I agree that's happened. A couple of times I've submitted noms of NRHP listings that used, as many do, one source primarily ... the nomination form (where I was unable to find anything else, which believe me I do try on every NRHP article I write), which despite the errors that sometimes get through in them are considered reliable sources. And then, people who seemed to feel that, to the exclusion of all else, we should not pass articles with one source, went and added things to the article with questionable sources.

For one example, take Top Cottage: I finished my expansion here and then nominated it, whereupon another user, Mrs EasterBunny (who turns out to have been an Archtransit sock ... wow!), went and frantically added all sorts of stuff in the belief that it hadn't been adequately expanded, producing, ultimately, this, with a long irrelevant personal history of FDR and his son (and, possibly, some borderline sources). Another experience that left a very bitter taste in my mouth was St. Paul's (Zion's) Evangelical Lutheran Church where because I only had one source (the nom) I was pretty much accused of making the whole thing up at one point, photo notwithstanding ... even after I had added some other sources. There were even more I could have included when I searched, but I had to exclude them all as unreliable. So I do see how articles padded with tangential material from questionable sources could get through, especially when people are primarily concerned with the hook facts and whether they're adequately sourced. Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

After finding another likely copyvio, I have opened the CCI at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20110727. MER-C 07:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

To offer my own opinion about why this has gone on so long ... from my experience in the past, Billy would contribute a bunch of articles, nominate them ... and then just disappear for weeks or months at a time before coming back, so not everyone reviewing was aware of the issues as a continuing thing. And those issues, in my experience as a reviewer, did not generally include plagiarism because we were only concerned about the hook, and in those situations where it was a little too close to the source I usually just rewrote it myself. I did, as I stated above, have some issues with the hook writing checks the sources couldn't cash (as it were) or just being dull. And when you did bring those issues to his attention, he was very nice about it and tried to fix things (That might have something to do with it).

I do plead guilty to letting the hooks for some of the plant articles that Carol Spears submitted through (you needed JSTOR access or something like it to check the sources fully, and as mentioned we only tried to verify the hook fact, which I either had to AGF on or sometimes could find it in the article abstract). And I do remember another user we had, can't remember his name, whose articles showed an extreme dependence on his sources when you checked them out. We were all commenting on it on the page at the time, and he was getting real apologetic. Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Catching up on 99 posts since I last read here ... OK, so all of this highlights why the problems are systemic at DYK. There is no instituional memory, no "real" person who remembers the who's who of DYK abuse and can watch for subsequent issues, no archives that new reviewers can check, and complex processes without a nom page that make it harder for new (and old) reviewers alike to know about past trends. And all of that means that when someone who has followed the seriousness of these issues for years comes in alarmed that nothing has changed, a whole new crop of newcomers thinks there has been an overreaction or there is no problem :) How on Earth can anyone here check the archives (oh, right, there aren't any) to see just how long and how serious the problems are, and how much worse they have become since QPQ reviewing was instated. A directorate, some accountability, and some archives will help address these problems. Problem nominators and reviewers can be identified and educated before they enable the creation of thousands of policy-deficient stubs that are never improved beyond the stub level, and which encourage the creators to continue the abuse, and which fail to educate either creators or reviewers about policy-compliant Wikipedia editing. The problem is, it's Billy Hathorn today, someone else next month, someone else next year-- but the process doesn't pick these editors up or deal with them, because there is no accountability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I will meet you halfway here ... DYK had a stronger institutional culture at least as of two or three years ago since it was a) a smaller group of people, mostly admins, who did all the reviewing and the manual process of putting queues together and notifying nominators both when there were problems with their hooks and (sometimes) the articles as a whole and when they got on the main page, as well as uploading and protecting the pictures ... all things done more or less by the bot now (This phenomenon of a switch to more automated systems reducing the opportunities for vigilance is discussed at length in a book I cannot recommend highly enough, Edward Tenner's Why Things Bite Back: Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences (ISBN 9780679747567)). Back then, it was easier to keep things like this in check. I do admit that I think the QPQ reviewing system, although it may have ended any risk of being caught short of articles for the main page (a problem, believe it or not, we once had on more than one occasion) and does remind contributors their job is as much to review others' submissions as it is to create their own content ... don't you at least ask FA nominators to consider reviewing other FACs?), further destroyed the institutional memory we once had. I can live with QPQ, but I could just as easily live without it.

The larger amount of available, reviewed submissions may also not help ... when you knew a hook was likely to go on the main page within 24 hours, you had to make sure it and the article were presentable. Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

don't you at least ask FA nominators to consider reviewing other FACs? I don't know if you're asking me, or in general, but I believe in either case, the answer is "no". We encourage *good* reviewers to review more, and we remind nominators who complain about the backlog that one way to help lower it is to review more nominations. We specifically do *not* require nominators to review because 1) we want to avoid the very QPQ that has taken hold here, and 2) not all good FA writers are good FA reviewers-- they are sometimes different skills. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Daniel and Sandy, it's sounding as though a DYK directorate is almost essential to make the system work well. The buck has to stop somewhere, and we need admins with a brief to coordinate the reviewing, prep area, queuing, and archiving. What about an election for ?four directors. Tony (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Prep area is and always has been handled by just about anyone (and most of the proposals for oversight/extra reviewing have been proposing it at the area of prep-to-queue, not the area of T:TDYK-to-prep). Archiving, as I explained below, is very simple and can also be done by anyone (as it is, removing empty days is done by whoever happens to stop by and notice it, as is adding new days; the archiving system I described below is not really any more complicated than either of those things). I don't see a need for admins or a directorate in either of those areas. As for "coordinating" reviewing and queuing, maybe; right now there doesn't seem to be consensus about that. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

<indent>I have a strange feeling that a few editors decided that WP has a problem because those particular editors believe so; that the system should be changed so that they can find a diff of a certain edit. In other words, I see the recent activity mostly as self-serving exercise aiming to satisfy a few regulars rather that help writers create high-quality content. The growing complexity of the system repels even regulars like myself. The most important issue in getting proper reviews is to attract reviewers, not to drive them away. So yes, the inflow of noms will be reduced by designing cumbersome rules, as desired, but I see no benefit for WP in all that. On directorate. Tony, note that those who actually compose the sets and promote them are hardly active here. That it is one of the least pleasant roles on wikipedia. So we've got Sandy running around with a flamethrower, looking for someone to scorch and you're trying to find those for her :-). Smile. With all that seriousness of "shoot anyone who makes a mistake" we are killing all that positive atmosphere which existed here and which Daniel partly reflected above. Let me give one example, we had a couple of editors who were regularly going through the T:TDYK lists　and helping the nominators, fixing their articles. Materialscientist (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the entire ANI subpage last year, or the fact that almost every archive you check here mentions copyvio, sourcing, or plagiarism issues. Denying the problem isn't the way forward. Whether it's called a directorate, or a panel of admins who are allowed to put content on the mainpage after cursory checks, or whatever DYKers choose to do, some kind of accountability at the prep or queue level is needed, since without it, we will again be having this discussion in six months, with a new crop of DYK denialists and a new crop of offenders. Again, without accountability, a template will do nothing. How are articles accepted at DYK when the expansion text is padded with non-reliable sources, and who is going to keep track of the next batch of serial plagiarizers? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

He might have missed the AN/I subpage because, contrary to what some Wikipedians think, not everyone hangs out there (I often wonder what it would do to, or rather for the Wikipedia community if we just completely banned new AN/I posts for a week), some of us are too busy trying to create and improve content and generally think AN/I is a waste of time and a giant living vampire quid that sucks the life out of Wikipedia. Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, but in this case, a relevant discussion of DYK issues was underway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hathorn update

August 2, update, copyvio continues even after warnings. [8] I won't have time to keep up with this regularly, but I suggest that admin intervention is needed at this point, and I do hope that some "institutional memory" will be present if another DYK from this author is presented. Checking through his recent contribs, I also see inaccurate representation of sources, non-reliable sources, and padding of articles with irrelevant info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• OOPSIE! Double checking, I misspoke. The copyvio was not introduced in today's editing, (it was there before), although neither did he clean it up when he revisited. He added that copyvio back in January. So, editing issues continue today, but the copyvio predated this discussion. I did find one instance of too close paraphrasing that I was able to edit myself, as it also contained irrelevant article padding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • All DYK submissions by Billy Hathorn were tagged-and-bagged on July 23 by DYK-regular Gatoclass, see the top of this thread. A CCI thread was filed on July 27 by DYK-regular cmadler. Checking for copyvio/plag/cp in DYK submissions is part of the new review template being used here, and now takes a large fraction of the time to do a review. It would be great to see some recognition from Sandy that DYK collectively took xer complaints seriously and has been working hard to detect/prevent copyvio/plag/cp. Sharktopus ^talk 15:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
    • The problem is that at least two were still in there two days ago and one marked okay. I checked both at that time and both had copyvio. Here's one marked 'legit' and another one. Both from the same night. Both when I was told not now; not important. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
      • It appears that both of the hooks you linked to were already rejected and removed from the Suggestions page. Cbl62 (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
        • No, they were still on the suggestions page [9] and one marked okay. This is one of the problems, finding diffs is hard - I don't see any way of showing that this was on the suggestions page when I edited it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
          • • I don't see the problem here, perhaps I'm being dense. The suggestions page is full of noms that aren't up to standard as that's where they are checked before being approved. Both of those were checked by you, found wanting, and removed as rejected less than 3 hours later. The "looks legit" comment was in passing and certainly wouldn't have been mistaken for an approval. Yomangani^talk 16:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
              • This is in response to the assertion they'd all been removed when in fact they hadn't. I was surprised to find them there; thought they had been removed. I realize the looks legit isn't a stamp of approval, but obviously it wasn't legit as shown when I pulled the first source. That's all. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
                • They were marked with a notice saying they had to be checked for copyright problems. They were eventually rejected. I don't see what's to complain about. On one of them, someone made a passing comment after a cursory glance at the article and, as far as I can tell, was never claiming that he had done a full review; again, I don't see the problem here. This attitude of eagerness to eat everyone alive is exactly the thing so many people are complaining about here now. It seems like you want to discourage people from ever contributing to any discussions here unless they're willing to stake their firstborn child on it. Again, the article was not passed, what do you have to complain about? rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
                  • Don't eat her alive in response. Yomangani^talk 17:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
        • After marked legit and then reviewed by TK, hence her point. I'm still struggling to understand the new archive system: where is the archive for this nom? Without an archival file, what accountability is there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
          • • • • • The expression "marked legit" was TK's shorthand way to describe someone's in-passing comment "this looks legit," meaning, one guesses, this looks like an article worth a formal review rather than one to be discarded out of hand. The comment "this looks legit" was not a formal review, and certainly not a formal approval. TK was objecting to something I said, also so informally as to be misunderstood. Billy Hathorn's articles were all marked for special scrutiny on July 23, which I loosely described as "bagged and tagged", meaning, grouped into a category (bagged) and labeled for special scrutiny (tagged). I am guessing TK misread my careless remark as a claim that all of them were pulled off T:DYK on July 23. She rightly points out they were not pulled off T:DYK but were still available for review, which afaik not one of them passed. 19:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
          • There is no archive for that nom as it was submitted before the new system was in place. Yomangani^talk 16:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
            • Thanks, but is there a file of all (weekly or monthly or whatever?) archives? That is needed for accountability. Anyone can review FAC archives, and see *everything* that has gone through FAC, observe trends, generate stats, and criticize or praise as warranted. There is a record of FAC's work, and delegates are accountable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
              • Category:Passed_DYK_nominations_from_July_2011, Category:Passed_DYK_nominations_from_August_2011, Category:Failed_DYK_nominations_from_July_2011, Category:Failed_DYK_nominations_from_August_2011. Yomangani^talk 16:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

                Thank you, Yo-man! I'm not fond of this system, but have bookmarked it on my userpage so I can remember how to find other months in the future. The problem with Cats is that you have to click on Every Single Nom in the category to glean or gather stats on what happened in a given month-- unlike FAC, where you can review an entire month in one file. But it's better than nothing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

                • Sandy, I already explained the archiving system to you twice, most recently here, where you never responded. I also explained to you here that nominations posted before I introduced the new system are not archived and I have no control over it. I don't want to explain these things to you again; if you didn't understand what I was saying, or weren't satisfied with the archiving system I described, you should have said so days ago. It's not very fun trying to deal with someone who says they don't care enough to comment and then comes back a few days later to complain about the very things I tried to help them with. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
                  • Don't worry about it, the new system is excellent and Sandy will get the hang of it in a while. Yomangani^talk 17:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
                    • She won't if she keeps abandoning these discussions before bothering to read the responses. I'm going to try her talk page. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
    • It's a nice thought, and I have several times acknowledged improvements that have been noticed in the last two days, but we still disagree on just what has improved and what is still needed (and we certainly disagree that all contributors here took this issue seriously-- it took some serious hammering to get some to tune in :) Unless there is accountability and institutional memory, what new reviewer or admin passing articles to the mainpage is going to remember that Hathorn is banned from DYK six months from now? And a checklist will not accomplish anything as soon as memory fades; in fact, I found (and lost in edit conflict) an example of problems just two days ago. Checklist checked, close paraphrasing still present. A checklist will do nothing in the long run. Would the checklist have prevented the suicide hook? I believe we are allowed to disagree on what has actually improved, right? (VERY happy to see subpages), even as I do acknowledge that, for today anyway, an egregious hook was prevented from running on the mainpage (I was tempted to ask if I wanted to slit my wrists, if I should do it horizontally or vertically, or if I wanted to shoot myself, should I go for the mouth or head  :/  :/) Is there accountability yet? Is there an educational template yet for notifying offenders? When I re-appear saccharin-sweet six months from now with the same egregious issues, will a whole new crop of DYK regulars shoot the messenger? I disagree that the checklist will help: disagreement is allowed here, I hope. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• (ec) I agree with Sharky. I spent an hour-and-a-half doing a review the other day, combing through the sources to try to identify close paraphrasing and to improve prose issues. The nominator was very responsive, and the result was good. If handled appropriately, the more intensive review process can serve an invaluable mentoring function for new and experienced editors. Will some mistakes continue to happen? Of course. But a little "praise" mixed in with the "pillorying" would be nice. Cbl62 (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Again, I've acknowledged some improvements, but disagree that the fundamental issues have been addressed long-term. As the GA folks can attest, praise will come when it's due. Let's have, maybe, a month with nothing egregious on the mainpage, and then talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Sandy, you asked above if new editors will "remember that Hathorn is banned from DYK six months from now"; I may have missed it in the mass of activity here, but I don't recall any such decision being made. (Not that I'd necessarily disagree with it!) cmadler (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you-- I'm glad I'm not the only apparent DYK idiot. I don't think the folks who hang out at this page realize how really awful the DYK pages are to negotiate (and I'm told they weren't this confusing, historically)-- sheesh, no archives and multiple pages to negotiate, along with multiple queues, prep areas, etc-- it all just seems intended to obfuscate responsibility and make it impossible for newcomers to negotiate. I certainly never saw any discussion of him being banned here, and thought I had missed it, again. And I saw some discussion above that "appears legit" wasn't a passing review-- how are newcomers supposed to know that, and considering QPQ reviewing is required here, shouldn't these pages be opaque to newcomers? They Are Not; I thought that review (mentioned above by TK) was passed. And some folks might stop jumping on me for not getting it, because if an experienced editor has a hard time negotiating these pages, what happens to a new editor who is *required* to review by Quid Pro Quo reviewing, or an experienced editor like TK who comes over here to review in good faith, and gets eaten alive? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• OK, I see the confusion now: someone said "tagged and bagged", not "tagged and banned". I misread or misunderstood. Since there were no archives, it's hard to follow-- what does "Tagged and bagged" mean? Someone checked each one of his noms and found copyvio, or what? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure who told you the DYK pages used to be less confusing. You can take a look at what the page looked like before September 2008 (i.e., before User:Backslash Forwardslash, User:Suntag, and I created the template now used for nominations); there were no headers for each nomination, the whole page was just a bulleted list and each nomination was one bullet. Back then, there were no queues and only one prep area, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was simpler, it just meant only one update could be prepared at a time (and thus ever 6-8 hours someone would have to get online and scramble again). rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Less confusing" was an oversimplification of that conversation. When I tried to learn to follow DYK during the October 2010 Debacle, I found that the talk page template, prep area, and four queues led to no accountability and no way to track a nom through DYK (something that your subpages have now somewhat addressed), but the four queues was the worst part of it. I multiple times highlighted problems in noms that were already in queue, and that no one fixed before they went on the mainpage (for example, I highlighted a subsequently deleted non-notable article at DYK on talk, and it ran on the mainpage anyway!!!). The four queues were what made it most unnegotiable to me then, and someone told me it hadn't always been that way-- that that was done to help admins pass the queues to the mainpage on time. My take on that is that only obfuscated responsibility, since admins can pass queues to the mainpage without even reading the bad hooks-- look at the original egregious Hathorn hook that led to all of this, and no admin even recognized that the hook hadn't even been reviewed, but that is old history now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Billy Hathorn concerns, and feel free to add comments there. cmadler (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Regarding the looks legit comment: As I've noted below, I did a search by looking for some sentences on Google. They came back negative, but I had to ABF considering the editor's history. As noted by TK above, it was not legit and so it was rightfully removed. It was not a formal review. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward II

I am probably going to lose access to the net for a week or two shortly, so I thought I would summarize some of my ideas about what needs to be done from this point.

• Firstly, I would like to see Rjanag finish the checklists he was working on. I'm not sure what their status is right now - I left him a message on his talk page but so far he didn't reply. I think these checklists should be the basis of the new checklist system.
• Regarding the proposed requirement for QPQ reviewers to do a check for plagiarism, I don't think we can reasonably expect them to thoroughly check every source. I would suggest a spotcheck on one or two sources chosen at random, preferably the main online source or sources used by the article.
• There will need to be a page somewhere outlining the new reviewing requirements and giving some basic instructions.
• Several users have proposed the notion of an admin directorate to oversee DYK. While this notion sounds good in theory, in practice I don't think we have the manpower. However, I do support the notion of more accountability for admins loading the queue. My suggestion would be for the loading admin to be required to sign off on some sort of boilerplate statement confirming that he has made a series of basic checks to the update. This would include scanning each hook for comprehension, grammar and hookiness, and scanning each article for obvious problems like NPOV and BLP violations, and source quality. Possibly we could include a requirement to scan the discussion that led to promotion of the hook, but that would only be feasible IMO if links to the discussion were included directly on the update page. I'm concerned that some admins may have started treating uploading as merely a mechanical process, an obligation to sign a statement would help remind uploaders of their responsibilities and return the oversighting function to the process.
• A couple of years ago I proposed automatic disqualification for articles containing copyvio, plagiarism or close paraphrasing. The proposal did not achieve consensus then but I think it may be time to revisit the idea. As long as there are no consequences for close paraphrasing, there's no real disincentive not to engage in it. If users know their articles can be disqualified for it, they are far more likely to make the effort to ensure their prose is original.

There are probably some additional issues, but these are the main points I wanted to make ATM. Gatoclass (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Gato, these are helpful and informative. The spotcheck idea would be especially practical now that CorenSearchBot is busted. Reviewers need to take responsibility, but we need to make our demands on them clear and finite. I really appreciate the way Tony1 and others are creating practical tools to reduce copyvio and too-close paraprase.

I think permanently disqualifying an article for CV/CP/PLAG would be a good disincentive the SECOND time the same author got called on one of these issues. The first time, I think, we should AGF and just make them fix it before it could run. Sharktopus ^talk 15:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

If you are reviewing an article and find CV/CP/PLAG, how do you know if it a first, second, or subsequent instance for that editor? cmadler (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I am reluctant to veto an article by somebody new, whose common beginners' mistake then gets tagged with the same hurtful/embarrassing/shameful terms as a willful dishonesty of repeat offenders. How about this instead -- if the person has more than 5 DYK credits, we reject any CV/CP/PLAG. But let's recycle some of the polite/unhurtful language the MoonRiddenGirl uses for notification. Sharktopus ^talk 16:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I certainly agree that we don't want to get bitey with new editors, and I'd accept giving a truly new editor the chance to fix such an error. But any editor who's been around long enough to get more than a couple DYK credits, or probably even a single GA, FA, FL, etc. should know better. cmadler (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

As someone who is a new administrator here (e.g. approving hooks and moving things about), can I also make a few suggestions? Please bear in mind that this is as I said, coming from an utterly bewildered standpoint:

• Yes more accountability for administrators - but less fear of God please - Ok, DYK being on the front page is a very big deal, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the reason there aren't more administrators volunteering for this job is a combination of sheer effort involved and the threat of crucifixion. If we could be more encouraging to administrators, rather than scaring them, there may even be enough for a directorate, which would then mean lots more accountability but with a shared responsibility.
• More editor participation - again, it's a question of coaxing people. No one appears willing to move approved nominations to the prep areas and this appears to be again, because of the fear of God. Let's try and reduce that so that both workload and responsibility are shared with the entirety of the DYK community.
• A clearer page at T:TDYK - Tony1's new system is awesome, but there are still many discussions which reach multiple paragraphs and people don't appear to be willing to look at these. That means that when a hook gets moved into the prep queue and editors are willing to look at it, they disagree with the discussion or find something they don't like, and it's a duplication of efforts. Not good.

Anyway, just a few ideas. Friendship and happiness and all of that. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

For my part, I've gone to T:TDYK a few times lately intending to do some reviews or even just some light housekeeping, but found myself so lost in the maze of templates that I've just given up. Combine the substantially increased complexity of reviewing through multiple levels of templates with the ongoing harassment of reviewers who let sub-GA-quality articles through and it just doesn't really seem worth the effort. cmadler (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

But the templates themselves help people to review under the new system. So wouldn't just clearing up the page, maybe making everything a header leading to a sub-page, be a good idea? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a worthwhile collection of suggestions. Thanks to Gatoclass for getting this discussion started. Some semi-random thoughts:

• I agree that reviewers cannot be expected to check all cited sources for plagiarism. The point should be to have your eyes open to the possibility, look for it, and document it if it is found.
• A shortcoming in our review process, both for hook sourcing and for plagiarism checking, is our willingness to "assume good faith" regarding offline and foreign-language sources.
• Based on my experience, the biggest challenge in dealing with plagiarism and similar issues at DYK is not likely to be in detecting it, but rather fending off the social pressure from the contributor -- and sometimes the contributor's friends -- to "be a good egg and quit your hard-ass routine." That social pressure is real, and given the dynamics of the Wikipedia community, I imagine it has a powerful effect on some of our colleagues. (I'm particularly mindful of this as an issue because one of the users who was most vocal in opposition to my RfA, and managed to talk some other people into !vote "oppose", was someone whose only previous interaction with me had been over a DYK nom that I tried to reject because the article was a mess of material copied verbatim from sources. The fact that someone else approved his DYK only helped give him ammunition.) Measures that reduce reviewers' potential susceptibility to social pressure are desirable.
• I don't see the value in requiring administrators to sign off on some boilerplate statement when we approve a queue. When I approve a queue, including copying the hooks to the queue slot and adding the "botdo" template (which I don't add until I've finished all of the other steps), my name is in the history and I'm accountable. The only "benefit" from adding a boilerplate statement to sign is that I'm likely to be less willing to load queues, because there will be one more step.
• Like others, I'm reluctant to blanket-reject problematic DYK noms because of issues with the articles. Review and improvement of DYK noms with relatively minor problems is often a good opportunity to help the contributors improve their work and get lessons for the future. However, I propose creating some categories on DYK contributors, based on the quality of their past work:

• Validated journeyman DYK contributors. These are contributors who are "known" to the DYK community, based on an evaluation of their multiple DYK contributions (more than 5) and their past review work -- or possibly their article contributions elsewhere, as people who generally understand and follow the rules. Their suggestions should be reviewed carefully (nobody's perfect all the time!), but DYK reviewers can be comfortable AGF-ing their offline sources and will not be hyper-concerned about searching for plagiarism-type issues.
• Probationary DYK contributors. These are contributors with a record of submitting hooks for articles that are copyvios, writing hooks unsupported by the articles or sources, passing off as "new" content from another source, etc. Their work will be closely scrutinized (viewed with suspicion) -- and rejected if there are questions the reviewers can't resolve satisfactorily without significant effort (for example, we might choose not to AGF their offline sources).
• Banned DYK contributors. One level worse than probationary!!
• Regular DYK contributors. This group is everyone else, including newbie DYK contributors, users who do good work but haven't bothered to try to become "validated journeymen," and users who formerly were on probation. Their work may get more careful scrutiny than the work of validated journeymen (for example, we will be less casual about AGFing offline sources), but as a general rule, they will treated as good-faith contributors.

I guess this user classification system (which is still poorly defined) would be in lieu of an admin directorate (which I think would be impracticable), but it would necessitate som new bureaucracy... It would, however, begin to address the "AGF" problem, and I think it would reduce the influence of social pressure on the process. --Orlady (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on your other suggestions for now, but I really do think we need a detailed sign-off for admins moving updates into the queue. The problem IMO is that there has been an increasing reliance on the process rather than on personal responsibility. I know from my own experience that there have been times when I've been too lazy or too busy to do much checking on the individual noms and decided to rely on the process, and I'm quite sure I'm far from alone in this. But I also know that if I was confronted with the necessity of confirming that I have actually completed a checklist, I will make those checks because I take my responsibilities as an admin seriously and I'd feel very uncomfortable about signing my nic to a falsehood (to say nothing of the potential embarrassment at letting a howler through from failing to run a check).

Most admins are responsible people. The point though, is that sometimes it's necessary to remind people of what their responsibilities are, otherwise they will inevitably take shortcuts. Gatoclass (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You'll forgive me I hope if I suggest that there needs to be a carrot to go with that stick other than no one yelled at me today. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Most admins are responsible people. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it as a stick - on the contrary, I see it as a way of encouraging greater engagement. I think part of the problem has been that the process has become so automated, that many of the admins who used to hang around no longer bother because they don't feel needed anymore. Give them something to do and I think we will quickly see a new crop of admins pitching in to help keep the updates running the way they used to do. Gatoclass (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see if that's true. I'd think that adding another step in the process would discourage participation rather than encourage it. Yomangani^talk 14:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It may initially discourage it. However, once it becomes clear that hooks are not being loaded in a timely manner, I'm confident that admins will step in to help out. And if this continues to occur, they will get used to the idea that this is something they need to keep an eye on. This is basically how the system worked when I first got involved several years ago, and I was drawn into contributing here in precisely the manner described - and so were many others. Gatoclass (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to once again be the bearer of bad news, but without accountability at the admin level and a means of developing institutional memory based on knowledge of copyvio and plagiarism, neither the template nor this user rating system are going to work. Some of your "best" reviewers are still passing close paraphrasing under the new template system, and several of the editors at the top of the leading DYKer list are serial plagiarizers, so if you confer some sort of status based on number of DYKs without the rest of what is missing, you're just continuing the same ole same ole-- giving license for serial plagiarizers to continue doing what they did on hundreds of DYKS. Furthermore, it's not really DYK's "job" to decide how to handle serial offenders; you put the copyvio tag on the article and notify CCI and the editor as specified in the tag-- it's their job to decide what action is needed. DYK is in an optimal position to identify those who don't know copyvio/plagiarism/close paraphrasing early on and bring those editors to the attention of the CCI people-- it's not your place to decide how to handle them ala "punishment". It's not about "punishment"-- it's about "education", and the CCCI folks have the tools to check all of that editor's contribs. I assure you that if someone opened a CCI on some members of the top DYKer list, we'd tax the system or break the internet :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

My wording regarding the "validated contributors" was incomplete. I have added some clarification in bold. I never intended that to be based solely on DYK count or edit count or review count, but rather an evaluation by the DYK community of the quality of their body of work. There are several productive DYK contributors that I would not support for such a status because their work too often has been sub-par. --Orlady (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia - Education is all very well and good, as is accountability, but if we're not nicer to newbies to DYK then we won't have any soon enough. Being abrasive is a very different ball game to constructive education. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

@Orlady, regarding your comments about AGFing offline and foreign-language sources: I think AGFing most of these sorts of sources is inevitable. Some offline sources are difficult to get one's hands on at short notice (may require interlibrary loans or something like that, and that's assuming the reviewer even has access to a good library—some don't), and I don't think it's feasible for reviewers to gather up several noms' worth of books on a weekly or daily basis, unless we turn this into FA lite. (I think even many GA reviewers AGF offline sources; for that matter, I've had FACs in which I don't think any reviewers checked my offline sources, but just took my word for what I said was in them.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• I had also been thinking about some sort of DYK contributor rating system. I'm not sure how it would be implemented, but given that reviewing time is finite, it would make sense to spend more of it with new editors (who may not yet be aware of all the issues) and problem editors (e.g. Billy Hathorn), and less time on editors whose body of contributions indicates an understanding of (and willingness to work within) applicable constraints. This is similar to Sandy's comment about FAC, where unknown (to her) editors get close scrutiny, while known editors who have proven themselves get just a light check. This doesn't necessarily apply just to AGF of offline sources, but to the general level of scrutiny given. cmadler (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • What it sounded like to me was a system similar to WP:Autopatrolled status, whereby participants can "apply" for this status and be reviewed by more senior participants. Beyond that, though, I'm not sure how one would keep track of who has what status, except by having a list somewhere and hoping reviewers remember who's on it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

@Gatoclass - I completely believe you when you say that you're responsible and take your duties seriously. For that reason, I would ask that you move some hooks into the prep areas and then the queues - doing all of the necessary footwork that comes along with that - and then tell me that it's automated. You could do it in an automated fashion, but you'd make so many mistakes that SandyGeorgia would murder you whilst you slept. As it stands, I've made a few mistakes myself learning this process and been told I should know better amongst other things in a rather abrasive manner. Now I don't consider myself to be doing this lightly or with an automaton-esque stance, it takes a good hour or so to make one prep work, let alone four of them. Something needs to be done to address the workload vs. payoff issue. Especially when, when a mistake is even thought to have been made, the first question asked is not What am I missing here? but Who approved this. It's a witch-hunt I tells ya! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing/plagiarism/copyvio in the template

The template has a field for plagiarism/close paraphrasing, and another field for copyvio. I think it's one too many fields. Many editors are still confused about the difference between plagiarism, close paraphrasing and copyvio, so I think it's hard for everyone to know how to fill out the template. I'm not entirely sure if this is this right course, but I'm inclined to suggest removing the copyvio field and leaving the close paraphrasing/plagiarism field. Input? Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Remove copyvio or merge the two fields. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The other template has them merged. Just sayin'. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That's better. I'd suggest it be renamed as "spotchecks" or something like that - if plagiarism is checked, does that mean there's none, or it exists? Also, plagiarism doesn't cover the issue of close paraphrasing. Anyway, I was going through filling in the existing templates on the page where apparently no spotchecks had been done. Somehow we have to come to terms with the correct terminology. And also of the reviews I have done tonight I've found problems although some had been ticked good to go, fwiw. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"Spotchecks" is too vague and might mean anything. It should be clear that "plagiarism" also means copyvio/close paraphrasing, that can be spelled out elsewhere - in a hidden comment if necessary. A tick means a pass, I think reviewers will learn that quickly enough. Gatoclass (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Right. Point taken. And btw, I disagree that people will know that copyvio includes close paraphrasing. I'm trying to help here; I don't need to; I have other things to do with my time, and other thing I'd rather be doing on wikipedia. All I'm doing is making a suggestion, but I get the clear feeling that I've been lumped in with the the so called "fac crowd" and am not welcome, which is fine. In the meantime, I've marked issues with some submissions tonight; some of them had been passed, without having spotchecks, and spotchecks undercovered plagiarism and copyvios. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you got that impression TK, but I can assure you in my case at least there were no such sentiments - I assumed your comments were made with the best interests of the project in mind and that is how I interpreted them. Constructive criticism will always be welcome here as far as I'm concerned, though of course I'm not obliged to agree with it :) But please don't let that deter you from participation, criticism is necessary to the health of the project and it is only through discussion that problems can be identified and rectified. Gatoclass (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Remarks that I'm a novice reviewer and don't know what I'm doing started it. Then when I offered to spend time spotchecking [10], that offer was ignored in this answer [11]. The response above that spotchecks doesn't mean anything is only true if we refuse to define the phrase and don't embed it in instructions. And no, plagiarism does not mean close paraphrasing and that's where the disconnect comes in. Until the people here familiarize themselves with WP:Close paraphrasing, and I'd suggest reading the very useful discussion at the bottom of the talk page, submissions will be continued to be passed that contain copyvio. These terms are difficult to understand, but we need to make an effort to teach the distinctions, and in my view DYK is a place to do so. The response that ticks mean a pass is problematic because I had to overturn two ticks (passes) last night in submissions where the articles had either outright plagiarism or close paraphrasing. I happen to like DYK, but won't hang around to help if suggestions are routinely ignored. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't recall ever saying you don't know what you're doing, so I hope I'm not copping the blame for that. Please try to keep in mind that there is a lot of exasperation around at the moment due to the heated debate that's gone on at this page for the last couple of weeks, I can assure you that you are not the only one who has had cause to take offence at some of the things being said. And I'm sorry for missing your offer to check for plagiarism, but I had bigger fish to fry at the time. Of course we would welcome such assistance.

In regards to the "spotcheck" suggestion however, I still don't like it, I think it's important to remind QPQ reviewers of what they are looking for, we don't want them claiming they thought they were only supposed to be spotchecking for grammatical errors for example. "Plagiarism" may not be a completely accurate term but we need a concise term as the template doesn't have room for extended labels, and as I said earlier, we can add the fine distinctions in a hidden text message output by the template. "Plagiarism" seems like the best term to me ATM but if necessary there can be a discussion about it, however I'd prefer not to get into an extended discussion about labelling right now because there are more important issues to resolve. Gatoclass (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't share your sentiments about "exasperation around at the moment"; in fact, I get a sense today that some readers here are finally paying attention and trying to move forward. However, your statements above are a step backwards and quite alarming. Sloppiness in terminology and space requirements/needs are not an excuse to continue misconceptions and lack of education about the differences etc between plagiarism, close paraphrsing, copyvio, etc. You don't seem willing to take these matters seriously enough-- they are not one and the same, and labeling it all "plagiarism" does a disservice to wikipedia and the uneducated editors who commit these. Copyvio is a legal matter; too close paraphrasing, when copyvio is not also present in history, is more of an ethical issue, but it's important to know the differences and how to search history. Continuing to misinform about the seriousness of copyvio with sloppy "plagiarism" terminology is wrong, and is also more likely to offend editors, since plagiarism is such a loaded term. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't share your sentiments about "exasperation around at the moment" That's rather ironic, because with that post you just added considerably to mine. Yes, we were starting to make progress until you turned up, but now it's immediately back to attacks on the competence and integrity of the DYK peasants. I did suggest to you several days ago that if you couldn't participate here without constantly personalizing the issues, it would be better if you didn't participate at all. I wish you would take that advice, one way or the other, because this hostile, bullying attitude of yours is totally unhelpful. Gatoclass (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thus speaks the real "hostile bully". How ironic. Malleus Fatuorum 16:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering why you read "hostile, bullying attitude" into attempts to highlight the importance of understanding copyvio/plagiarism/close paraphrasing and early attempts at educating editors on same at DYK, where they often occur, before they grow into a serious problem affecting hundreds of articles. Which jogs my memory. My apologies if my memory is faulty, but weren't you one of the group of editors who advocated that cut-and-paste from DANFS was just fine, and who got a number of DYKs doing just that? If that is the case, and again my apologies if I'm mis-remembering, then your opinions on these matters might be skewed. Before the 2009 push to educate on these matters occurred, I too would have thought that kind of editing to be OK for Wikipedia, but those education efforts (the Dispatch) had some effect on my perception. You might consider how many of the authors of that Dispatch are still editing, and consider which of our truly finest left Wikipedia in disgust over DYK. Just a thought-- perhaps some of us know of what we speak, and have actually been quite gentle on you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering why you read "hostile, bullying attitude"

Well let's see now, my actions are alarming, I'm taking a step backwards (as opposed to nameless others who unlike myself are making progress), I'm sloppy and making excuses, not willing to take [things] seriously, doing a disservice to wikipedia, misinforming and offend[ing] editors, but your post was not hostile at all. I guess I just imagined all that. Gatoclass (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Gatoclass as far as I know we've never interacted. All I know about you is that your name occasionally showed up on my page with DYK notifications. I've made an offer - to make time for spotchecks - and a recommendation regarding terminology. You dismissed both, quickly. People have to be able to make recommendations, otherwise they'll disappear, and it will be business as usual around here. My fear is that if that's the case, business as usual will tank DYK. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Truthkeeper, with respect, I most emphatically did not dismiss your offer to do spotchecks - I simply missed it on the first occasion, and when you brought it to my attention, welcomed it. In regards to your terminology recommendation, I did not dismiss that either, I simply disagreed with it - and in fact signalled a willingness to discuss the issue, but preferably not at this time when there are more basic problems to resolve. However, if you insist on having the discussion now, fine, let's do it. Only for me personally, it will have to wait until tomorrow as I'm very tired and about to log off. Gatoclass (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the main point, which I'm about to give up with, is that problems exist here with copyvio. When Sandy uncovered the first Billy Hathorne article, that I reviewed, the mantra was, "well it doesn't matter because that's what happens with novice reviewers" and no one admitted the real problem. When I offered assistance, the response was a little bitey and long the lines that I lied about FAC. When I raised the issue of terminology, the response was to disagree. The issue that has been ignored and continues to be ignored, is that issues exist with the quality of the submissions. After my reviews last night, I'm not seeing changes. I'm seeing problem submissions checked as good to go. In my view the most basic problem at DYK at the moment is to minimize the number of submissions that make it to the main page with copyvio still in place. I'm fairly good at spotchecking, have done a lot of it, but if it become an issue of "not at this time" that's fine. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Another one bites the dust :) We see frequent lamentations of DYK writers leaving when they were caught plagiarizing or violating copyvio, but very few mentions of very good reviewers who left DYK in disgust (in fact, even left the project in disgust) at the level of plagiarism at DYK, or the fact that trying to change it is like banging your head against a wall. Anyway, Gatoclass, no answer on DANFS? Should I assume that means that you continue to create articles by cut-and-paste from DANFS, which means you have a pony in this race, which could explain why you are so defensive and assume that every word written is directed at you, hence take things so personally? Perhaps you can set your own conflict/bias aside, and let general discussion of the problem happen; it appears to be you deciding that the shoe fits, not me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no "pony in the race", IIRC I haven't authored an article solely based on DANFS for literally years. But there is no issue with direct use of DANFS text in any case provided the text is properly attributed, so I can't imagine what point you think you are making. And please, stop misrepresenting my position; I am not preventing "general discussion of the problem", in fact the last thing I said before logging off last night was fine, let's have the discussion, I could hardly have been more explicit. Gatoclass (talk) 03:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Back to the template

Re Rjanag's template: It doesn't mention hook length, which is traditionally an important aspect of review... (Please add.) --Orlady (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

*Sigh* I deliberately left that out as a minor issue that might be better left aside given the additional complexity already being added. I suppose you have a point though. Gatoclass (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The template is still a work in progress: I made it clear days ago that I was open to suggestions about precisely what things to include in it, but everyone was too busy calling each other names to give feedback. As for hook length, if it is included I would prefer just wrapping it up in a more general "hook format" box or something like that...I was hoping to try to keep it as simple as possible, rather than listing tons and tons of things in it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

My suggestions for the hook fields were Clarity | Neutrality | Citation(s) | Interest . I guess you could add a Format field to the start of the list, which would cover all the format issues, if that's what you mean. Gatoclass (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I add to the sighs, but (as mentioned above), the Plagiarism field is logically a bit inconsistent: if I sign off "length", I say the the length is good, If I sign "Plagiarism" I would say plagiarism is good, or not? I started "no pl" but would prefer it to be worded differently. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

From the template documentation: "|plagiarism= refers to whether the article is free of copyright violations" rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest to say so explicitly: "free of pl", it's only 8 more chars, and much more to the point, at least to me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If the "plagiarism" field is used to refer to both plagiarism and copyvio, it needs to be made clear in instructions, because an article can be free of copyvio and still contain plagiarism, and vice versa. cmadler (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, what I had in mind was not to make a huge template listing every single possible thing that could be wrong with an article. Plagiarism, [text] copyright, and close paraphrasing are obviously very similar problems, and obviously checked for in more or less the same way. I know the differences between them, but for DYK purposes an article that has any of the three is treated much the same way. I thought it made sense to merge them all into one field, since I created the template is a quick-and-dirty aid to reviewing, not a full list of every tiny thing that every person wants to have reviewed. It is still possible (and I encourage it) to leave real comments below the template, so if anyone is concerned that it's not clear enough they could always X (or just not sign off) the "plagiarism" field, and leave a comment below explaining the specifics of their concern and whether it has to do with plagiarism, copyvio, or close paraphrasing (personally I don't see why the distinction matters in this context, any one of the three leads to a unless the article is rewritten). For that matter, the lack of one field in the template never precludes anyone from reviewing that; people can always leave comments in words below the template. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when a process is reduced to a checklist, the checklist will start to define the process. (If the process has many steps and one is omitted from the checklist, that step is likely to be overlooked and may end up being forgotten.) I like the idea of "hook format and length" (or some variant) as a checklist item. --Orlady (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Last time 'round, DYK instituted QPQ reviewing, which made things worse. This time, instead of address the problems, they were camouflaged with the addition of a burdensome checklist and template. Neither will work, both will make problems worse, there is still limited (but somewhat improved) accountability, but folks here will carry on as if the problems were addressed. Hasta la proxima vez anyway, when there will be a whole new crop of nominators and reviewers who don't know the history of how DYK came to be what it is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• As I understand it, copyvio includes plagiarism and CP. As suggested by Crisco and others, I merged copvio into the former two in the template, but now I'm not so sure. Reviewers should be mostly able to just sign against each bullet, and if checking for image copyright/fair use is included now in the same line as plagiarism and CP, that assumes the reviewer has checked both text and images. What to do? Tony (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  They are not necessarily a subset. "Attribution" (authors and permissions attributed correctly) would cover all three but might be a bit obscure at first glance. Yomangani^talk 09:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hook length, compliance, and formatting should be in the single template: a one-stop shop. Tony (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

How to spotcheck

• I've noted that some of my reviews are included in the ones TK looked at. I was wondering, would google searching random sentences (without quotation marks) count as spotchecking, or would one have to manually check each reference? I went the google route, 3 sentences per article for those I reviewed from scratch. I AGFed the ones that had already been reviewed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• You should manually check books and journals. Other sources can be found easier in Google searches. Dependent on the article size, I usually check about three or so 'blocks' of text from three different references. If an editor copied/close-paraphrased text from one, it is likely they did it for others. You can also compare references to the article in the Duplication Detector which can also give you an idea if there is close-paraphrasing.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)The way to spotcheck is to find a random sentence in the article and look at the language used. Then pull the source that cites the sentence and via a find command check to see if the same language exists in the source. In the two you checked I found them in the first sentences I looked at. I only checked the second one because you'd ticked off the Billy Hathorne one, and all of his I've looked at contain close paraphrasing. To answer your question: googling doesn't work. The sources are in the articles and we need to look at the sources. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• (ec) IMO, those methods don't work and are too prone to misses; here is an old thread from my talk page discussing ways to spotcheck. I think it essential to pull up at minimum the most-oft-cited online reference and read it-- when there is plagiarism/copyvio/close paraphrasing, that almost always pulls it up (a frequent plagiarism source on DYK is online obits). You could also go to the first few edits on the article, where you will often find that plagiarists chunk in the text directly from a source, and then on the next series of edits just move a few words around (we can't do that-- if it's in the article history, it's still copyvio). I found one of those yesterday from a recent reviewer that signed off using the new template, so I still hope we have some accountability at the prep or queue level in terms of who is putting the info on the mainpage, and that they are doublechecking the review, and not assuming that some *esteemed* reviewers caught the plagiarism. Also, as DYK gains a means of developing "institututional memory" on frequent nominators and reviewers, spotchecking will become easier (I also target nominators and reviewers who are known to have committed plagiarism or copyvio or missed it on prior reviews for deeper looks, and don't look at all on nominators whose work I know very well).

  As pointed out many times by MoonRiddenGirl in the October/November threads, DYK is in an optimal position to educate new and old editors alike about plagiarism/copyvio/close paraphrasing and to catch it before those editors create hundreds of copyvios. I still hope that DYK will develop a notification template that can go to the creator, the reviewer, the admin who put it on the mainpage, DYK talk and article talk, linking at minimum to the offending article, WP:COPYVIO, WP:PARAPHRASE, and the Plagiarism Dispatch. The point of asking "who did this" (which we can now get from Rjanag's new template (with the exception of the admin who put it on the mainpage, which is still missing) is to educate so it will stop happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the most-often cited online reference, I recommend also looking at any online reference that's given as the sole source for a large chunk of text. That's how I've found close paraphrasing in several of Billy's articles. cmadler (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree, and that can be particularly helpful on the very first, or first few, edits to a new article. Look at the first few edits, and if they are one source only, read the source and compare it to the text. Copyvios should be scrubbed from history; the copyvio people know how that is done, which is why you should tag those articles with Template:Copyvio and let those who work in that area deal with it from there. It is a mistake to try to clean up a copyvio without scrubbing the history, as TK can attest to from her experience at attempting to do that on a serial plagiarizer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that when information is plagiarised then by definition its source won't be listed. Yomangani^talk 14:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That's completely untrue. Malleus Fatuorum 14:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I suspect TAO (The Adorable One) of tongue-in-cheek. I think he's saying that my method will miss plagiarism/copyvio when the creator didn't indicate the source, whereas a google or some other check may turn them up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Only slightly tongue-in-cheek. Plagiarism is presenting someone else's ideas without crediting them sufficiently. If you cite them as a source you can make the argument that you have given them sufficient credit; you aren't passing the ideas off as your own. Copyvio and close paraphrasing might be caught by these spotchecks, and straight lifts can be caught by Googling most of the time, but if there is plagiarism and close paraphrasing or plagiarism of the ideas without the text, you'll only really be able to detect it if you know the subject or do some research. If you suspect plagiarism you can, of course, ask for a reference: if the editor can't provide one then we are looking at OR (which we hate more than Marmite). Yomangani^talk 15:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

We are in violent agreement; have a vegamite sandwich on me (don't I still owe you half a pretzel?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was a whole one; I hope you aren't defaulting on part of your payment: that would be a scandal. On the spotcheck matter: if I see an uncited section in a heavily cited article I become suspicious. Yomangani^talk 15:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Your co-competitor stole the other half right out of your mouth when he snatched victory from the jaws of defeat with a gracious response. I'm defaulting for other reasons, though; NYC is out. Uncited sections-- yes, helpful to google suspicious phrases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks for the quick replies. A couple replies:

@NortyNort: Yes, I knew about the tool, but it isn't useful for Google books. I figured the G-search would be useful because it also searches the books. Thanks.

@TK: As I noted on the edit summary, I wasn't sure (because of the history). That's also the reason I didn't add a tick. Thanks for letting me know the better way to check it.

@Sandy: Indeed, education is paramount right now. That history method sounds interesting. (Side note, would a copyvio revision be revision deleted to if the article had already been expanded enough, with enough creative input, to make it non-copyvio? [i.e. multiple sources, better paraphrasing and amalgamation of information])

Thanks everyone. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Crisco, I can't really answer that-- MoonRiddenGirl is the expert on how Wikipedia deals with them, and my understanding may be incomplete. But my understanding on why it's important to notify CCI is that they need to scrub it ASAP, before further improvements hide the copyvio. I say that because they indicated many times that on Grace Sherwood, because it had been through FAC and underwent many improvements, going back and scrubbing the original copyvio from history was much harder. But if productive discussion is now underway here and these matters are being taken seriously now, you may want to ping in MRG and ask her input, since she is far more knowledgeable than I am on how Wikipedia handles copyvio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed she is. I've gone to her multiple times when I come across headscratchers. I think your answer is good enough, and if I see anything like that I will let MRG know ASAP. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

An RD1 is best suitable for an article in which there is a likelyhood that the copyvio may be restored or it has a short single-author page history. If a copyvio was inserted in an article 1000 edits back, rev del'ing would be unnecessary given the extensive history and other editor's or the same editor's non-infringing contributions in the period. In addition, if there is the possibility that other copyvios exist in the article, an RD1 would make it difficult to investigate that in the future.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

CopyVioSpeak: I have no idea what any of that means (which is why I leave it to the folks who work there). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Rejected article: suicide by hanging

I created suicide by hanging on 31 July, and nominated it the same day. It was reviewed by two editors; one apparently approved it fully (see Template talk:Did you know/Suicide by hanging). On 1 August Panyd expressed disapproval, and a while later Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry unilaterally rejected the article (without giving time for improvements etc.) They said, "Completely unacceptable hook. Borderline inappropriate as an article: the topic is fine, but we're not supposed to be writing a how-to guide", further explaining on my talk page that "the use of the word 'recommended', as well as the general 'how-to' nature of the article, makes it unsuitable for a front page space." I think the article meets Wikipedia policies and DYK rules (I don't know any DYK rules that would exclude the article), which the above explanations don't seem to be based on. Even if they were, that is still no reason to completely remove the nom, without even allowing it time to be improved. The Cavalry then filed a strange AfD on the article, which has four keeps and zero deletes. I would like to get consensus here for the nomination to be reinstated. Discussion about Stone's reliability, the hook, etc. can then take place on the subpage. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Article looks decent to me. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I have no comment about the article, but I agree the hook first proposed was extremely inappropriate. I wouldn't have qualms against reopening the DYK nom but requiring a new hook that's not a how-to guide. The topic is not in of itself inappropriate for DYK, as long as it's approached in an appropriate way. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed about the hook, definitely not something we can use. Something about hanging being the most common method of suicide would be more appropriate, or perhaps the Chinese hauntings. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Quick note: this was the article when I saw it. It may be appropriate sourcing for an article, but putting a hook which openly advises people on the best way to commit suicide on the front page is completely unacceptable. I know of several Wikipedians who have attempted suicide in the past year, and of at least one who has been successful. I deal with occasional emails from users who feel suicidal, and I look after someone who is irrationally suicidal. I have a wealth of experience in this, and I am convinced that putting this article on the main page will result in people harming themselves. I'm also certain that - given your interests - you're active on alt.suicide.*, which worries me further, especially when I come across posts in your name like no, use a gun, this and disown your family. Given your past blocks, and past editing history, your sense of judgement on these topics does not fill me with confidence in your ability to make decisions on this sort of thing - you were blocked for "Using nazi imagery in entirely inappropriate places", and you edit unusual socially-unacceptable topics - such as paedophilia and suicide - more than usual. I'm all for assuming good faith, but I simply cannot do so if assuming good faith means that vulnerable people might be hurt. Putting this on the front page shows, in my opinion, a distinct lack of editorial judgement on whomsoever places it there. The Cavalry (Message me) 03:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

There may well be an appropriate hook in this article, but recommending types of rope for a suicidal person to use? That's repulsive. (If that comes down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT then so be it.) LadyofShalott 03:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a how-to guide, and this is an inappropriate use of Wikipedia's mainpage. I'm glad that the new subpages allow us all to follow what happened here without having to dig through a gazillion diffs, and glad to see some review of hooks catching now the obviously abusive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Here here to both of the above comments! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 10:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with several of the above commentors that, while the article itself is suitable, the suggested hook is not; however an alternate hook should be found, rather than rejecting the submission out of hand, so the nomination should be reopened. At this point it will also need to wait for AfD conclusion, which is looking like an easy keep. cmadler (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

There are questions regarding the suitability of the article aside from the hook formulation and open AFD. Yomangani^talk 13:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Carly Foulkes DYK credit

I just want to make sure that if people think Gerardw (talk · contribs) deserves some sort of credit he gets it for the upcoming Carly Foulkes DYK which is on the queue page. He stubbed the article out so some might give him a credit. I am not sure what to do and want to make sure if he deserves credit he is given it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. His contributions during the expansion period were minimal. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Why? Is it even/ever customary to credit a three-sentence stubber?? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I posted this thread after receiving this unusual bitter post on my talk page from a person claiming I forked his image description page without giving him credit. I just wanted to make sure my thinking was properly calibrated. Thanks for the bit of reinforcement that I am not madly taking over other people's work.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Your heart is in the right place, but there are no worries regarding DYK. Although it is not written (I think), it seems that the only people who receive DYK credit for a nomination are those who participate in the expansion, as measured from the time expansion starts until the nomination is made. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• when receiving message like that, you could diplomatically link to this in your reply. ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure we can all accord him whatever credit he deserves (I've mentally given him a little ripple of applause. Just a ripple, mind) Yomangani^talk 10:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Proportion of noms with images

Just a mechanical query to the queuing admins: over time, are there too many, too few, or just the right proportion of hook noms with images? Tony (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I assume there are not too few, given that we've never (to the best of my knowledge) been forced to run a set without any image at all. Sometimes images are not used, which I don't think means there are too many (having exactly 6 images a day would not be "just right", as it would leave us with no choice of which one to use). Anyway, the people who would know this are not the queuing admins (since they don't actually assemble the queues), but the editors who move hooks from nomination pages to prep areas. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Generally we get far more than we need. ATM for example, there are 45 images at T:TDYK, enough for 45 updates, but there is probably only 20 updates worth of hooks on the page. Gatoclass (talk) 08:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Some images are not interesting at a low resolution, or otherwise unsuitable. Some, like the Iceland Penis Museum, could be controversial and/or attached to a hook that is great as a "quirky". Luckily, we have far more images coupled with nominations then we need. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we generally get far more images than we need, but this is a good thing in that it allows us to comfortably eliminate lower-quality or otherwise unsuitable images and use a variety of image (e.g. not run a bunch of buildings consecutively). cmadler (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

If day

There has never been a Nazi invasion of Winnipeg, therefore there has never been bloodshed during such an event. The current proposed hook is simply untrue. Fiction or simulation should be clearly identified as such. Kevin McE (talk) 09:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a link to what you're referring to? None of the editors here are mind readers. rʨanaɢ (talk) 09:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It's about the article If Day linked as "Nazi invasion of Winnipeg" in Q6. Materialscientist (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Done Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 10:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

3 article hook to 2

Sharktopus nominated a hook with 3 articles we both worked on, now suggests to keep one separate, which I support. Question: should the subpage be moved to one for only 2. I guess so, for clarity, especially since the third is going to appear on its own. But thought I better ask. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd create a new nom and post the single article there, with a note on the original nom page mentioning that an article was relisted as a single. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but what to do about the remaining 2? Move? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to, sure. But there's no need, methinks. That's why I suggested leaving a note on the original nom page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Crisco, I did just that. And I also removed Make credits for the third article from the (now) two-article page. You wouldn't think it, but Paul Speratus and his hymn Es ist das Heil uns kommen her had way too many hooky things to use, quite aside from his being sentenced to burn at the stake when he wrote it in jail. Martin Luther burst into tears when he first heard the song, from a beggar outside his window, and it may have inspired him to start the first Lutheran hymnal. (First Lutheran hymnal is the third article that got moved to a different nomination.) Sharktopus ^talk 13:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Glad I could help and you've hooked me... time to read the articles. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

What Sharktopus did is probably the best way to handle it. No need to move the page; just remove the one article from the hook (or at least unbold it), remove the credits related to it, and re-nominate it elsewhere. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Could an admin please fix a few hook issues in current queues?

Miss Mary Jane Marchand, whom 12-year-old Sharktopus long ago greatly admired, would say you should change these:

• Queue 2: ..."can only move and burrow backwards" should be "can move and burrow only backward".
• Queue 3: Misplaced modifier on the hook for Berlian Hutauruk. Nobody compared her vocals on an album to a vampire, somebody compared her voice to the voice of a vampire. How about instead "that Berlian Hutauruk was described as having a voice like a Kuntilanak (a female vampire in Indonesian mythology) before becoming a very successful singer?"
• Queue 3: "high school football, and was considered" should be "high school football and was considered" (remove comma)

These are not grammar issues, but just just suggestions on style:

• Queue 2: "people in Florence abandoned their sick relations" How about "sick people were abandoned by their families"? I think this is one of the rare cases where a passive construction is better than the active one.
• Queue 2: "had to row four miles to find medical assistance" How about ""had to row four miles (6.4 km) to get help"

By the way, that failure to add a metric conversion is Sharktopus's fault entirely, so if somebody repairs it they will be fixing what I did wrong. Sharktopus ^talk 01:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Added all proposed corrections to Q2 (leaving backwards which sounds slightly better to me, but correct me if ..). Leaving Q3 because I have to run :-). Materialscientist (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Comma removed. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 02:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Daily DYK scandal

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page

There's always one, whether faulty sources, plagiarism, or sensationalism, but y'all have exceeded even your own low standards with:

reporting one negative fact based on one source which places the subject of a BLP in a negative light. Have you all no shame, or simply no processes for assuring you don't trash the main page? All one has to do is take a daily glance at DYK to realize it's gotten worse and worse. By the way, who verified the hook this time, because the source says he "may" be able to, not that he did. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

For reference: this hook was moved to the prep area here. Ucucha 02:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ucucha: am I reading that correctly? It appears to me that TK verified the *first* hook, and yet DYK *ran* the second (alternate) hook.[12] If correct, amazing. How did that happen? Get it off the main page, folks-- it's a debacle. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Done by Dom. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup, Dominic got to it before me (or MZM, apparently!). Nice catch Sandy. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(But you both got here in time to edit conflict me!) Yes, I removed it. I intended to replace it with the other hook, but it seems that it wasn't chosen because there was an issue with self-published sources being used. I'd rather leave it for more experienced DYKers to decide what to replace the spot with, whether it's another one from that article or something new. Dominic·t 03:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, all, but can y'all go back and figure out how that happened? Am I correct that the first hook was the one verified by TK, yet for some reason the second hook was chosen even though it wasn't checked? Y'all have got to find a way to plug these holes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No, TK didn't specify which hook he verified; so in effect, he verified both. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I remember there was a hook about a water board. How can you see from this diff that there were two hooks there? Once these are processed they're gone. At any rate, if there was an alt hook, which looking back at the page, I see there was, I wouldn't have expected it to run unless I suggested it, which I didn't. In my mind alt = something wrong with first, and I never commented on the hook, I was focusing on the content. But at any rate, am prepared to admit I screwed up here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

From reading the discussion, it does not appear that TK was looking at the alt hook, and no where in this mess of a process can I understand WHY Crisco chose to run the second hook. Another user (OCNative) ce'd it in the prep area 1, and then Materialscientist moved it to queue. None of those people saw the problem? There is a systemic breakdown here. You've got one person proposing a hook, another reviewing, another moving to prep (Crisco somebody), another copyediting the hook (OCNative), another moving to queue (Materialscientist), and no one saw the problem, or noticed that apparently TK verified the first hook, not the alt? How is Crisco empowered to choose the alt, based on that discussion? Are you all simply pushing through too much volume to pick up things like this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No, TK's first review of the DYK submission was here, at which point there were already two hooks there; he put his comments (which discussed various aspects of the article, not just hooks) underneath the second hook. There was nothing to suggest he wasn't looking at the second hook. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Absolutely correct. TK did not specify which he checked, or which he agreed with, so I chose the hookiest hook. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• DYK can be as obtuse as you all want for as long as you want, but it doesn't take any amount of effort to read the discussion there and realize that TK (a new reviewer) did not verify the alt hook. But, at least Crisco has now told us why he chose the alt hook in spite of that-- he prefers the sensationalist hooks, which is another big problem driving the DYK daily scandal. One editor can put a debacle on the main page, that three other editors up the DYK line don't catch. No accountability, no transparency, no archives, no institutional memory, no decency wrt human beings. And you're still putting BLP vios from the same editor who wrote this one on the main page. Tsk, tsk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• I said hooky / sensational, not sensationalist. Please do not twist my words around. Naturally, if one hook reads "... that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii?" and the other reads "... that President of the United States Barack Obama has won two Emmys?", the Emmy hook is hookier. As for the reviewing process, please feel free to join in the reviewing process. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Or, for an example of a somewhat negative hook, "... that President of the United States Barack Obama smoked marijuana as a teenager?" Still hookier than "was born in Hawaii" Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps there was an error in the review here, which is certainly worth checking, but I believe the DYK hook used is well-verified and the subject of many news reports in Texas. Its not even that shocking really. Too many DYK hooks are totally boring bollocks, at least this allows readers to check into the controversy and understand it.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - in fact, the first hook here was indeed extremely dull (and yes, maybe even close to "boring bollocks"), which may be what encouraged choice of the second hook. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have one, just once in a while, just one discussion about the obvious problems at DYK that focuses on solutions? A BIG part of the DYK problem is the desire for sensationalism which leads to junk like his being run on the mainpage. Choosing one negative sensational fact from a BLP, based (in the article) on one source isn't the way we should be doing things. Again, are you all trying to push through too much volume, with too many hands in the pot, no accountability, no archives, no means of checking, that things like this can too easily get through? Boring is better than the sensationalist crap that often makes it into DYK-- and that article for darn sure did not allow any readers to check into the controversy and understand it-- the entire controversy is reported from *one* source in the article. Please stop the drive for sensationalist hooks, and institute a process where there is some accountability for what goes on the main page, instead of too many cooks in the broth, no archives, complex processes, and no one in charge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There is almost never a good reason to put even true and cited negative facts about living people on the main page of Wikipedia, and certainly not recent controversies for local politicians still in office. Putting a negative claim about a living person on the main page, which gets millions of hits, without the context of the rest of the article gives an incredible amount of undue weight to that aspect of the biography. Dominic·t 03:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The DYK rule is that hooks must not focus "unduly" on negative statements about a living person: "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided." Let's get a grip on what actually happened here. Somebody approved a hook the described an amendment Christian verifiably supported, one that was verifiably limited to beach property in the exact area of his own beach property. There is nothing in BLP that says you can't mention a verifiable fact about somebody that others might perceive in a negative way. The bar is set higher for a DYK hook because it is short, and you can't typically balance something negative once it is mentioned. This was a mild infraction at DYK of one of DYK's own rules. It was not a "scandal." Sharktopus ^talk 03:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, to answer just one of your questions, yes I think you all are trying to push through too much volume. There's a proposal above, at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Good articles redux that would reduce that volume by a small amount - what should in my opinion be an uncontroversial amount. But it doesn't seem to get much support. Some more thoughtful input there would be useful. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The basic problem is the number of submissions we get, fiddling with the means of dealing with them will not alter the workload, because someone still has to vet every submission and make decisions about it. Tightening the criteria for DYK would be the only way to reduce submissions, but no-one seems to want to do that and there is no guarantee it would change anything, since many of the people who do most of the work now would probably just see it as a means of reducing their own workload.

In any case, this is not such a big deal, DYK only has occasional slip-ups but they occur in every part of the project, and there seems to be some disagreement over whether this hook should have been pulled anyway. Debate is healthy, but let's not blow things out of proportion. Gatoclass (talk) 04:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a big deal, and should be taken more seriously as it's a BLP. Yes people make mistakes, but then again, people should learn from them and not make them again and again. AD 11:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

What Aiken drum just said. This is not a minor glitch that should be swept under the carpet. A negative fact about a living person was put onto the most viewed page on the fourth largest website on the internet. There was no need for that and it should be taken seriously. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Except that there's a steady turnover of people so that mistakes are made by those less experienced. And while I agree that the hook probably breached our rules, it was on the main page for less than three hours. Gatoclass (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)::

So let's look at solutions that deal with these mistakes so they don't hit the main page? Don't just accept it as a problem. I see this as a very good reason to reduce the number hooks on the front page, so only the best get on (something I wasn't really for before). NB In 3 hours, the page is seen by ~600k people. Don't underestimate that power. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

As I just said, reducing the number of hooks will not reduce the number of submissions, so it won't reduce anyone's workload and won't make the end result more reliable. This kind of thing happens once in a blue moon, occasional mistakes are always going to occur, they occur even with FA from time to time, and they are not a reason for proposing radical changes. Gatoclass (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, TCO mentioned to me that he was after some data on DYK, I'll do my best to get that together before commenting further. I've done a fair amount of DYK work myself, I'd almost consider myself a reg and I've seen enough that I think that some sort of change is needed. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Catching up on multiple: Dominic has it just right, and anyone who doesn't get that shouldn't be working on anything that goes on the mainpage. Gatoclass has a very valid point about the high turnover of people working here-- there's a new crowd of people in here about every three months, so the old mistakes keep repeating, even though MANY of us have been harping on the same things for years now. Perhaps good and experienced editors eventually leave this area because the turnover is too high, the workload is too high, the process is too complex, or they become embarrassed when they realize the poorly sourced sensationalism and plagiarism they often put on the mainpage? It is NOT an occassional mistake-- any time one chances to look at DYK (as I did yesterday), one can find something egregious-- whether plagiarism, copyvio, non-reliable sources, inaccurate representation of sources, and now gross BLP situations. You all need to figure out how to fix this-- editors are NOT entitled to have time on the mainpage, and the volume of turnover needs to be reduced. You also need, IMO, a directorate made up of experienced editors-- a place where the buck stops and someone is responsible when this happens. I think it's pisspoor to blame this on TK, even if she accepts responsibility, when it's quite clear from the discussion that she vetted the first hook, yet the second ran. Will someone PLEASE tell us what possessed that Crisco person to run the alternate hook? What is your process? Who is in charge? Nothing has changed even though many of us have been harping on this for years, and Gatoclass points out why (there's a new crowd in here every three months claiming there's no problem when the problems go back years, the Shark character is the latest DYK apologist in a long stream of same)-- you all know best how to fix it-- others from outside can't pretend to tell you how, but you do need to fix it. You need lower turnaround and accountability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If I may, Sandy, I would suggest it's not helpful to use this as another stick with which to beat DYK over the head or to blame a specific editor. Everybody here has acted in good faith, but mistakes have been made—I think we all agree on that much. So instead of insulting DYK (regardless of whether it deserves to be insulted or not), why don't we have a collegial discussion about how (or even whether) DYK can be improved. Without that discussion, we'll all waste a lot of space discussing these issues every time they come up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought that's what we were trying to do, and who is trying to blame any specific editor? Or better stated, who is trying to brush this under the rug? This cannot be blamed on TK-- it took multiple (systemic) process failures to cause this. Until some regular denialists here start looking at the process problems, and considering for how long this has been happening, it may be time to take up a stick rather than drop it. As soon as the regulars here start discussing much needed change, rather than resisting it, I'll be glad to unwatch for the gazillionth time after finding egregious DYK issues on the main page. And until DYK begins to seriously discuss how to change the problems, rather than deny them and claim they are occassional, it may be time to start assigning blame. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Have started reading this whole discussion, starting from this section and working down to the recent RfC at the bottom, and I'm trying to concentrate on the issues at play here, but the tone of the discourse is varying wildly from person to person, so it is difficult to avoid getting distracted by comments like "that Crisco person" and "the Shark character". Can we use people's usernames rather than dismissive terms, as failing to follow the basic courtesy of using someone's username properly only distracts from the systemic issues you are trying to get people to see? I agree there are systemic issues, but it seems to me to be people having different standards and not agreeing on what is a reliable source, or having the time to explain to users how to write properly from sources and what needs rewriting or not. Just pointing something out is sometimes not enough. Sometimes you have to demonstrate by editing the article what should be done instead. Carcharoth (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Break

• One feature that all Main Page programs rely on is Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors, where people swiftly report problems to get swift correction. I encourage everyone to look at the history of that page to search for past "scandals", let alone daily scandals, at DYK. Errors occur in all the Main Page features. This page is commonly used to suggest changes in DYK process, many of which have been or are being implemented. This particular article was reviewed by a novice reviewer. I had proposed a while ago that some more experienced reviewers make a practice of reviewing Prep instead of reviewing individual articles; I would be happy to see that proposal reconsidered. Another recent proposal to help novice reviewers resulted in cmadler's very kindly posting a reviewer's guide to help new reviewers. I just added a more prominent link to that guide and a strong suggestion to new reviewers that they read it before proceeding. The rule about "unduly negative" BLP hooks is in there. It is regrettable that mistake was missed by the more experienced people who made up Prep and Queue, but I am betting they don't make that mistake again. Sharktopus ^talk 12:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'd advise you not to put money on that-- every mistake made at DYK recurs quite regularly, and has for years, because there's a new crowd of editors in here every few months. ERRORS should be for errors-- not systemic, long-standing, well-documented, ongoing process failures. Please stop glossing this over and pushing it under the rug. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I apologize for this, and take full blame. Whoever said I was a novice reviewer is partially correct; I don't review often at DYK. This particular situation arose from this discussion where Demiurge1000 challenged me to review a DYK. Honestly I was only looking at the content and made two very serious mistakes. One is that I assumed the article creator would scrub all the problems after a spotcheck, and two I assumed the first hook would be used, as it seemed fine and no reason to go to the alt hook, about which I didn't comment. We all know what happens when a person assumes, and for that I'm completely culpable. Not much more to say, otherwise. Oh, except to thank Sandy for being on the ball, to thank whomever pulled the submission from the frontpage. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No, you're not completely culpable-- it is QUITE clear from the discussion that you reviewed the first hook, yet for some reason, that Crisco editor chose the second hook. The problem here is too many queue turnovers and no one in charge-- after you reviewed the first hook, three different experienced DYK editors worked to put the alternate hook on the mainpage-- it took multiple cooks in the broth to cause this to happen, and therein lies the problem-- no accountability even as an obviously bad hook moves up the chain. Further, that this could have happened with an experienced editor (TK, who did NOT review the alternate hook, yet it ran anyway) only highlights the problem-- that is, DYK requires nominators to review regardless of their editing experience, so you get inexperienced reviewers, who are even MORE likely to make a mistake than an experienced editor like TK. Bad, bad process here. I hope you all will decide how to fix it, and stop relying on faulty RFCs-- you need to DO something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

After so many edit conflicts (and a cuppa tea :D) - TK, you're a link in a chain. The nominator[13][14], the reviewer[15], the "prepper"[16] and the admin who moved it[17] to the queue all failed. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Well I'm afraid it's not working—at least for DYK it's not. And as far as I'm concerned, Sandy is right: daily is no exaggeration. Do we need to start a public DYK bloopers page to convince people that the current system makes the safe, secure, functional reviewing of DYKs virtually impossible? Apart from the dangers to the main page, there can be no proper role of mentoring less experienced editors and inducting them into the process of improving articles from scratch. It's painfully obvious that the system needs to be reformed in several ways to ensure that DYK fulfills its own objectives and those of the whole project. The number of hooks per day needs to be reduced, and the system of nominator reviews needs to be a little more demanding than tick tick tick, count the characters. The time has come to drop the inflexible coloured ticks and crosses that assume lightening quick reviewing, and to create a proper checklist of the urgents that need to be OKed before exposure. Tony (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but we're not GAN, and there's never been a requirement that DYK articles have to be perfect or anywhere near it. The basic idea of DYK is that it's a process that is accessible both to new users and to prospective users who might read one of our new articles and think "I could do that!" DYK articles are not supposed to be perfect.

As Sharktopus pointed out, there is a page here specifically designed to catch and rectify mainpage errors, which occur routinely in EVERY mainpage project. Why DYK gets singled out for this negative attention I don't know, but I suspect it's because some users just don't like the format and philosophy behind it. We've had many attempts to change the working of DYK in the past and they have all failed, most people like it the way it is. Gatoclass (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No one is asking for perfect, but we don't need apologists for plagiarism, sensationalism, and BLP issues. It is NOT acceptable to put this level of debacle on the mainpage. As an experienced DYK editor, I hold you and other experienced DYKers responsible for fixing them, not denying it or apologizing for it. Your process stinks; fix it. DYK deserves this negative attention-- it is NOT an error, it is a sytemic process failure that has been going on for years. You're on old-timer here-- work on it, or take your lumps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

As someone who contributed to DYK in the past - but only extremely rarely now - it seems to me that the problems have worsened significantly since the decision was made to require self-nominators to also be reviewers. What that meant is that some nominators found an easy hook to skim-review, with little concern for the article's accuracy or for finding the best or most appropriate hook. So long as they could tick the "reviewed another article" box, their own hook was likely to be promoted. But there has never been any reason to assume that new article contributors would have any expertise or interest at all in reviewing other people's articles or hooks. The system worked better when reviews were in the hands of experienced and dedicated (albeit, I'm sure, overworked) reviewers who took the responsibility seriously. But, of course, it's also true that far, far too many articles are promoted through DYK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm afraid I've been largely inactive at DYK for quite some time. The main reason is that I got tired of the almost total lack of support for combating POV pushing in the I-P topic area. Many users either don't see the problems (presumably due to systemic bias), or else run a mile when they see a dispute in contentious areas come up - some admins won't touch politically sensitive submissions as a matter of policy. I guess at some point I came to the conclusion that it just wasn't worth the hassle.

So I can't pretend to have my finger on the pulse of the project as it currently exists - possibly standards have slipped somewhat due to the implementation of QPQ, as admins have come to rely on it too much instead of verifying hooks themselves. DYK is a constant grind and it's usually left up to just a handful of admins to run it. Sometimes I think WP should have some sort of roster system where admins were encouraged to take part in one part of the project or another for a set period - there are lots of areas that are short of manpower. Gatoclass (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

But if those are, in fact, the identifiable issues (quid pro quo and too much volume), why can't both of them be solved? Eliminate the QPQ reviewing, get a directorate, and reduce the turnover volume to one queue per day. I don't mean to propose solutions-- you all should know best-- but who is the "you all" at DYK, if knowledgeable editors move along and denialists and apologists move in? Who will fix this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Not being an old hand at DYK, I dont understand this statement "Eliminate the QPQ reviewing, get a directorate". Could you please elucidate, SandyGeorgia? AshLin (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I too was a bit lost in the shorthand introduced in Gatoclass's post, but I assume that when he used QPQ he meant Quid Pro Quo reviewing. DYK instituted in the last year a process that requires nominators to review another editors' hook (QPQ)-- I believe that to be a big step in the wrong direction, and it is something we have studiously avoided at FAC, for a number of reasons that I would think are obvious, but I will elaborate if necessary. By directorate, I mean that FAC, FLC and others have directors and delegates in charge, so that some real person is responsible if repeat issues aren't corrected. We had one bad, and well publicized instance, of copyvio at FAC, and we took responsibility and got on it and corrected the problem. By directorate here, I mean a core group of experienced knowlegdeable editors who are where the buck stops before a DYK is put on the main page-- in this case, it took at least five editors to contribute to the mistake, but there is no one "in charge", no one "responsible", no bottom line of accountability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

As I've said, reducing the number of hooks which appear on the main page does nothing to reduce the workload, because the number of submissions remains the same. We could increase the DYK requirements but such proposals have always been shot down in the past.

I guess one thing that could be done is to have greater accountability at the update level, where admins have to actually sign off on some sort of boilerplate statement saying they have checked all the hooks thoroughly for compliance with DYK rules before loading them. ATM admins have the option of signing off on the update, but they are not obliged to vouch for its quality. Just a simple change like that might go a long way toward improving the output. It would discourage admins from treating the update process as nothing more than a series of mechanical actions. Gatoclass (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Gato, whatever you all decide to do, another thing to consider is the kind of thing we had to do at FAC to address the backlog from repeat offenders: if a FAC is archived, the nominator can't bring another for two weeks. If you make some kind of change, perhaps whenever you find a problem, that person then either can't review or can't submit for several weeks-- that may help slow down the high level of submissions, and encourage folks to get it right the first time. Just an idea, that may or may not be applicable here as it is at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, that could also work at T:TDYK level too - if users verify hooks that turn out to be problematic, they could be banned from submitting any more DYKs for a set period of time. That would be one way to increase the quality of reviews, especially QPQ reviews. Gatoclass (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

But take care not to phrase it as "banning" or "sanctions", as that can be off-putting. Allow them to save face-- frame it as a means to reduce the backlog and assure adequate review and give nominators and reviewers time to address previous mistakes, rather than as some kind of penalty, ban or sanction. Honestly, we had to put a FAC rule change in place to deal with one nominator's abuses, but it isn't helpful to call attention to individuals and their mistakes-- it's more helpful to simply put processes in place that improve quality and encourage better submissions without blame. If nominators know that an archival means that can't come back for two weeks, they will hopefully bring increasingly better prepared articles to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

What's an "archival"? I'm inclined to agree that wording is important - I was shocked at the amount of resistance just to QPQ, which was seen as an unreasonable imposition by some contributors. We wouldn't have to be confrontational about it, but the point would need to be made clear. Gatoclass (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

A FAC is either "promoted" or "archived" (we used to call it failed, but that's hard on nominator ego :) The problem we had was that some nominators were serial offenders, bringing repeatedly ill-prepared articles to FAC that sapped a lot of reviewer time. As soon as one was archived they put up another, equally deficient FAC that just took reviewer time and increased the backlog. So, we added the two-week wait after archival. See my suggestion in the section below for implementing something similar at DYK. FAC has also seriously rejected-- and will always reject AFAIK-- QPQ reviewing. Nominators are not necessarily good or experienced reviewers, and personal motivations may become an issue. I think doing that at DYK has directly resulted in lower quality: only experienced editors should be vetting mainpage content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the explanation. FYI, QPQ is not a requirement for every nominator - only those who have at least 5 DYKs to their credit already. The assumption is that anyone who has accumulated five DYKs knows enough about the process to review other noms - but whether they are all bothering to do so adequately is obviously another question. I'm thinking that auto-rejection of their next nomination would be an effective method of improving reviewers' concentration, although I have little doubt after the QPQ experience that there would be howls of outrage from some quarters over such a proposal. Gatoclass (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Glossary for those who are confused by the TLAs (my interpretation) -

• QPQ Reviewing = Quid pro quo reviewing, as part of your nomination you are required to review another nomination, certain editors believe this causes sloppy reviewing. <-- Current situation
• Directorate = A group of editors "in charge" of reviewing, who have the experience to do so and the accountability if something gets through. Certain editors believe this will cause a backlog.

Hope that helps AshLin ;) Worm^TT · (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oops, sorry for the repeat above :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks SandyGeorgia and Worm That Turned for the explanations! Whenever I have reviewed a DYK I was conscious to try to follow the rules & additional rules to letter and spirit. I was not aware there was a QPQ involved - I thought that unless the other person reviewed my DYK in return for my reviewing his, no QPQ was involved. AshLin (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

  Correct-- I would not have labeled it QPQ, but QPQ is a potential side effect of requiring nominators to review, which is one of many reasons we have always rejected that proposal at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Seeing as my choice of the ALT for this DYK is causing more problems than a volcano in downtown Los Angeles, I will try and explain why I chose the ALT. As DYK regulars have probably noted, I prefer the more sensational (a.k.a. hooky) hooks. In this case, the original hook was something that could apply to any old politician. Meanwhile, the ALT was something quite unique (and which I honestly did not see as too negative). As TK did not state which hook he preferred, I went with my gut. Preppers are not required to double check the referencing of hooks, so I assumed it was okay. Sorry for any misunderstandings. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Instructions/rules additions needed

One part of the problem here, is that the reviewer approved the nomination apparently without checking (or even looking at) the alternative hook. Their assumption was that the alternative hook wouldn't be used unless there was some sort of problem followed by a further review, and that therefore they only needed to look at the first hook. This might seem obviously wrong to someone experienced with DYK, but not to a novice reviewer. More to the point, alternative hooks, despite being a well established and widely used practice, aren't mentioned at all (that I can find) in Wikipedia:Did you know or in Wikipedia:Did you know/Additional rules. They are mentioned in Wikipedia:Did you know/Onepage under "Proofreading Template talk:Did you know" ("you need to check ALT's, some of which occur in the middle of a paragraph full of comments. Just because an ALT isn't formalized as an ALT, doesn't mean someone can't copy it to a preparation area") and under "Glossary" ("Often an ALT is selected instead of the original version"). Really, there should be some mention of this in the other DYK instruction pages; it might have prevented the problem in this instance. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right. I looked at the plagiarism, and as it happens didn't even catch all the plagiarism on the page. I also looked at the hook which seemed appropriate and no need for an alt hook, so let it be at that. I've apologized. There's nothing wrong with the instructions; you challenged me to review a page, I did, and screwed up. Happy? All this after your quite frankly disparaging comments that continue above. I did look at the hook - am not that stupid. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

With respect, I don't think more instruction creep is the solution-- this process is already so obtuse and hard-to-follow, that it's unlikely that adding to it will address the recurring issues. A complete revamp of the process is needed-- this whole business of nominate, prep, queue, move to mainpage, no archives just makes for no accountability or transparency, and this is something we've been discussing for at least a year. Someone needs to take the bull by the horns and revamp the technicalities of how DYK works-- it's impossible for an outsider to follow. And my opinion is that that task would be much eaiser if you reduced it to one queue per day. Everyone who writes a DYK is NOT entitled to mainpage exposure if we don't have enough peoplepower to assure mainpage quality-- tighten the requirements, reduce the submissions, go for one change a day, get a directorate, and if you can avoid these kinds of issues under an improved system, then move back to four queues a day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I find it astounding that no one seemed to notice this problem. I suggest a simple new rule: Each did you know needs two "good/assume good faith" reviews. Thoughts? Hurricanefan25 ^{tropical cyclone} 15:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That would just destroy the whole point of QPQ, which was to reduce the reviewing burden on the regulars.

IMO, if a double-check system was to be implemented, it would make more sense, as Sharktopus suggested above, to implement it at the Prep level rather than at T:TDYK. But I've already suggested a less onerous alternative to this, which I think should be tried first. Gatoclass (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Continuing

Um, POV on the mainpage is also something we should watch for. The same editor who put up the nasty BLP that led to this has another DYK today, which raises eyebrows at least. Hollis Downs. Looks like a pattern of editing with an agenda to me: YMMV. And can someone tell me why we use a primary source to discuss his $250 contribution to the Republican party? Have reliable sources mentioned it? Houston, don't look now, but you've got big problems. Also, I can't locate any info about the reliability of the source for the hook; perhaps I'm missing it, but I've reviewed their entire "About" page and don't find anything qualifying them as a reliable source. Who reviewed this time? Does DYK really want to continue in the business of allowing such clearly biased content to be put on the mainpage, because someone claims to have checked one sentence? We have another purely negative, unbalanced article on a politician on the mainpage-- now a pattern. Please someone consider whether it should be removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not seeing any great problem with that hook or article. There is nothing wrong with primary sources, AFAIK there is nothing sinister about the Republican National Committee, and I don't see how supporting an "anti-bullying bill" represents an attack on a politician. Gatoclass (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting-- the problem is more systemic than I thought. Well, it must be a good time to go the ballgame and unwatch DYK, which is rather clearly beyond help. See y'all next time round. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on, that's a total copout, apart from being a slight on my own capabilities. Please explain the nature of your objections so that I at least have the opportunity to defend myself. Gatoclass (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Dominic will come along, and perhaps some CUs will come along. I'm afraid it looks like DYK is part of a much larger systemic problem than even I thought. Honestly, clean up your act. If you don't know the problem with using primary sources and non-reliable sources in political bios, I can't help you. What's going on here is alarming in how long it's been happening, but plainly disgusting in the levels to which it has reached. I'd much rather go to the ballgame now, bye. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I concede that I've missed the public figure/primary source issue up to now, it's the kind of nuance that as a regular FAC contributor you would be well aware of but you shouldn't assume everyone has the same level of familiarity that you and your fellow FAC contributors have accumulated. As for unreliable sources, of course we don't accept them. Had I reviewed this article myself, I would certainly have raised questions about it, however, many articles get promoted that I myself would not promote, and one cannot get too far out of step with one's colleagues. It seems you are trying to bring FAC standards to a process that is radically different - we simply can't give articles that kind of scrutiny. I can't possibly go through every source in every article in every update to ensure that every fact is verified - one has to rely on the wider process to some extent. Gatoclass (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

And BTW, referring to the contributions of other good faith editors as "plainly disgusting" is uncivil in the extreme - I must say I am deeply disappointed with your attitude and your comments in this thread. Gatoclass (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Without disparaging the legitimate concerns that Sandy's raising--I agree that this hook's the Wayne Christian hook's appearance on the main page was a problem and we should discuss how to better prevent its recurrence--the have you no sense of decency tone strikes me, too, as both off-putting and likely to generate more heat than light. -- Khazar (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion created by my comment above; I lost track of where I was posting. It's the Christian hook that seems objectionable to me, not the Downs. -- Khazar (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the particular article in question in this thread, I'm having trouble following Sandy's description of it as "purely negative", "clearly biased", "plainly disgusting", etc. The language describing Downs' history and legislation seems to me neutral and (for the latter) to give due weight to both sides of arguments, and while I agree that the mention of the donation to the RNC was silly and rightly deleted as irrelevant, I have trouble seeing how it was an attack. The guy's a Republican state representative; why would anyone be surprised by this? If anything, I think this article makes Downs sounds rather good. I see no reason to remove it from the main page. -- Khazar (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Question: Do you mean the creator or the prepper? If you mean the prepper, I will let you know that I have no opinion on US politics, especially on the state level. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The author of this article has something like 800 DYKs to his credit, and though his contributions have been serially problematic in one way or another, I've never heard anyone accuse him of "having an agenda" against Republicans - AFAIK his political bios are almost exclusively on Republicans, and I've always made the assumption the writer is a Republican himself. So I think Sandy is just plain wrong on that score. I agree that the bio is a little rough, but so are lots of DYKs, perfection is not the goal here, these are Wikipedia's newest articles and it's expected that there will be room for improvement. Judging by Sandy's dummy spit in this thread, what our most trenchant critics are expecting to see at DYK is FAC- or at least GA-level rigour, if that's what they want then we should just hand DYK over to the GA process and scrap this process altogether, because we don't remotely have the resources for that level of reviewing and never will. Gatoclass (talk) 02:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Gato, that's alarmingly like what Rlevse said to me when I first questioned his approving of nominations where almost all of the article was basically copy and pasted from a single scouting website of unknown provenance. "These articles can be tricky to source", and "this isn't GA you know" ... and onto the main page they went. No-one else saw a problem with it, and I was too new to put up a fight. Are we sleep-walking to a new disaster? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. I wouldn't for a moment endorse putting plagiarism or copyvio on the mainpage, and in the past I've argued for the strongest possible sanctions for those who submit such articles, proposing that any such articles be automatically disqualified and that repeat offenders be banned. As usual, I got little support for my views. As for Rlevse, I had ongoing serious misgivings with the quality of his reviews, but made few comments since (a) he was at the time a sitting arbitrator who ought to have known what he was doing, and (b) he was a prolific contributor whom I didn't want to alienate. In retrospect, it's clear we all should have been more vigilant, but let's not forget that Rlevse's plagiarism also got a free pass for an extended period at FAC, where there really is no excuse. Gatoclass (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Despite making a mistake on the hook, I didn't make a mistake on the close paraphrasing issues with Wayne Christian. The Downs page has the same problems, fwiw. I'd think this would be case where an editor should have a greater level of scrutiny, or something. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Am I crazy or did we not have a discussion awhile back about the author of this article (Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs)) and plagiarizing? Or was it sourcing? Either way, this is a really really bad thing to find in someone who has written so many pages. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Billy has an ongoing problem with the use of substandard sources for his articles, it's not that all the sources he employs are substandard but he doesn't exercise much discrimination. He also used to have a problem with writing articles on people who failed WP:NOTE, although he has improved in that regard.

I'm not aware of any plagiarism issues in his articles, if this is a recent concern I've missed it. He appears to have good language skills and is able to put things into his own words and usually does in my experience. If he's starting to take shortcuts, obviously that's something that will need to be addressed but I'd have to see some evidence of that. Gatoclass (talk) 09:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No, this would have been awhile ago. It was probably over sourcing. Anyway, TK above says that she found close paraphrasing in two of his articles – that's what I was going off of. Could you (TK) provide some examples? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Next scandal of the day, keep 'em coming

The sourcing problems, BLP problems, and plagiarism are easily found, including in today's DYK[18]-- that no one here is aware of them in someone with this many DYKs is not surprising, considering the history of serial plagiarizers who have gotten away with it for years at DYK with no regulars here detecting the problems. But, again, plagiarism and copyvio are not the only problems DYK is showcasing on the mainpage-- poor sourcing is an equal concern.

Have some easily found examples (we can go on for pages and pages, but perhaps one of the good folk here will get off their duffs and open the copyright investiation on the work enabled by this process):

Gordon Dove (Louisiana politician) nominated for DYK on July 12.

Article:

• Young Dove's vehicle careened across the highway, crashed into the right guardrail, and overturned several times. His seat belt was not fastened. Partially thrown out the back window and pinned beneath the SUV, he died at the scene.

Source:

• The SUV careened back across the highway, crashed into the right guardrail and flipped several times. Dove, who police said was not wearing a seat belt, was partially thrown out the back window and pinned beneath the vehicle. He died at the scene.

Article:

• Dove is chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee and works to raise awareness of the importance of coastal passes and barrier islands. He supports the north-south corridor for hurricane evacuation and the funding of the hurricane protection system from Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico. Dove also supports the state charity hospital system by removing the Medicare and Medicaid caps placed on the hospitals

Source:

• As chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, Dove will be a coastal floor leader for some years to come. In particular, he is interested in raising awareness of the importance of coastal passes and barrier islands. ... On health care, he supports funding the state’s charity hospital system by lifting existing Medicare and Medicaid caps placed on the hospitals. On coastal protections, the planned north-south corridor for hurricane evacuation and the funding of the Morganza-to-the-Gulf hurricane protection system are top objectives.

Deny away. DYK has got more than one prolific editor who doesn't know reliable sourcing, doesn't know BLP, and doesn't know how to paraphrase content in their own words, and you have no mechanism for preventing this systemic issue from being displayed on the mainpage. Why, again, is it that we MUST display new content, rather than vetted content, on the mainpage? And why is it that DYK has no directorate, no one responsible for these messes? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see this as a scandal but a controvery in which Mr. Christian prevailed. Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I did do some rewording to minimise some of this - looks like some more would be prudent. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't think of a way to equate "careen" with something else, nor "north-south corridor", "raise awareness of the importance" should be doable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that the second example does not deserve to be called a "copyright violation" based on the evidence shown. "raising awareness of the importance of coastal passes and barrier islands" may be a long word-for-word similarity, but in political terms it may have significance that would be lost with a rewording; it sounds like the sort of language one might find in the summary or even the title of a bill. Likewise "north-south corridor for hurricane evacuation" is a specific technical term, and obfuscating it risks losing the meaning - especially if it turns out (I didn't check) that it isn't really that directly north-south but the road is just numbered that way. (I also have a bias that we just shouldn't mess with anything that risks confusing people about disaster safety) Finally "Medicare and Medicaid caps placed on the hospitals" might be reworkable, but there aren't that many options. Could it steer clearer? - probably. But it doesn't deserve to be branded. The first example may also be hard to reword in places, but overall it is harder to defend. Wnt (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Next

• Chuck Kleckley. After removing all the text in a BLP not cited to reliable sources, does it still meet the size needed for DYK? How can you all be passing DYKs on size needed without checking that sources are reliable, and why are you putting BLPs on the mainpage with non-RS? More importantly, why are you still passing DYKs from this particular writer, given the number of issues already identified? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Nexxxxxt

• The Paul Winchell Show; I'll let some other genius spot the close paraphrasing, plagiarism, or whatever you want to call it, but the article is built almost entirely from non-reliable sources, so how does it meet the expansion criteria? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, your hyperbole on this page is becoming increasingly irritating. More than once now you have described articles with minor flaws as "egregiously bad". The supposed "BLP violations" you are finding are at best technical, and at times questionable (what is wrong with votesmart.org?). There's a difference between constructive criticism and mudslinging, the latter only causes resentment so please try to exercise some restraint. We are already discussing ways to improve the process so this ongoing documentation of alleged errors is just becoming a distraction. Gatoclass (talk) 06:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Gato. What's next? Something like this?

  "The End of Wikipedia is Upon Us! Erwin Gutawa has a Typo! DYK can be Blamed for all of Our Problems on Wikipedia! Get that Misspelled Stuff Off the Main Page!"

You have raised valid points, which has ignited a longer discussion than most threads in the history of DYK. I think that participating in said discussion, rather than adding trivial or questionable mistakes to the "list" here, would be a better way to improve Wikipedia. As Gatoclass said, there is a difference between constructive criticism and mudslinging. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hyperbole might apply if you all weren't continuing to put serial plagiarism, BLP vios and faulty sourcing on the mainpage YEARS after this discussion has been going on, and if you weren't continuing to do exactly the same in every single DYK queue since this first came to light, thanks to TK's unfortunate dip into the mess here. It 'might be hyperbole if you all were doing a single thing to stop it. You're not: you're enabling it and continuing it and several DYK regulars have evidenced that they have no clue or concern for Wikipedia policies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the copyvio really needs to be addressed. From the source [19]: 'in which contestants would have to guess the identity of a celebrity based on a few given clues.' From the article: "and a section called "What's My Name?", in which contestants sought to guess the identity of a celebrity based on a few clues. This from the first sentence I've checked. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That is a somewhat close paraphrase, but information cannot be copyrighted. I don't think it would qualify as a copyvio, as there is paraphrasing. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. Simply changing a few words most certainly can constitute copyvio. I don't know what you mean by your statement that information cannot be copyrighted. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to deny the seriousness of problems like copyvio and close paraphrasing, and the examples raised are valid and will require action, but many of the other supposedly "egregiously bad" examples are relatively minor and in some cases, nonexistent. This particular article, for example, hasn't even been reviewed - and yet it's being used as an example of DYK's supposedly broken processes. Threads like this are just becoming a distraction when we are already discussing methods of improving the system. Gatoclass (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

In one sentence (5 words out of a total of 15 or so)? No. A few words in a whole article? Most definitely. As for information, perhaps facts would have been a better term. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

@Crisco - I looked at one sentence from one source in one article. We don't count words - we look at similarity. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how to rewrite source material that I find worrying. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand that, but using one example that is only one sentence long is not the best way to show a possible violation. Numerous structural and lexical similarities would be best. Naturally, if we are worried about it we could rewrite the article, with more paraphrasing and whatnot. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Pretty big problem here when two DYK regulars don't understand the seriousness even when it's black and white. No, people who don't get this should not be working at DYK in *any* capacity-- we cannot be putting this kind of thing regularly on the mainpage, and the reason it hasn't been fixed in more than a couple of years of awareness is the the DYK regulars either don't get it or don't care. I don't know if this is incompetence or indifference, but it's quite alarming. By now, someone should have started a copyvio investigation on the Billy editor doing this (and no, Carcharoth, I can't keep all the players straight here, nor do I presume to remember in the midst of a discussion that Crisco is 1942-- there's something to be said for choosing a username others can remember). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

An investigation of the nominator would be acceptable, although I take offence at the suggestion that I do not understand basic copyright law. As I have noted above, facts cannot be copyrighted; it would be ridiculous to try and copyright the fact that Wikipedia was founded in 2001, for example. The wording of the facts themselves may be copyrighted, but a single sentence is not always indicative of a violation, especially when efforts were made to paraphrase it. As for the user name, I have had it for nearly 5 years now and the meaning is explained explicitly on my userpage. You are the first to complain that it is too hard to remember, and if you feel so please call me Crisco. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Using a single sentence is called spotchecking. It's how it's done. If I were a teacher or a professor, spotchecked and found that, I'd know all I needed. This is pretty much best practice for finding copyvio. We have 3 million or more articles - the best that can be done is spotcheck a few at a time. That's how it works, and the example is quite clearly copyvio. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I am quite clear on what spotchecking is; I've done it myself with my students. However, spotchecking and demonstrating copyright violations are two completely different balls of wax; a spotcheck helps to find the copyvio, but numerous similarities prove it. You seem to have submitted the above as proof of a copyright violation. Perhaps a link to the tool's readings would help? I forget its name. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The tool is my eyes. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This tool would help show possible copyvios much more thoroughly. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It gives this, which doesn't convince me of anything but a close paraphrasing. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh for gosh sakes, stop the obfuscating: DYK puts serial plagiarizers on the mainpage, all the time, and even when they know it, they continue to do it. That's a bigger point than the fact that many regulars here don't consider it their job to stop enabling writers to violate Wikipedia BLP, sourcing and copyvio policies. Focus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm highly tempted to hat most of this discussion so that we can focus; we have 7 (and counting) sub sections to this thread. Yes, you are showing good indicators that we have a problem of close paraphrasing, which as mentioned somewhere on this talk page is a guideline and not a policy. As to whether or not it is close enough to be called a copyvio, we have numerous editors who could be called in to weigh in on it. However, the I doubt the actions of a single editor should be used to waterboard the entire DYK community. Perhaps you would like to check some of the other articles featured today and then let us know if it is DYK that is at fault or the one editor. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hatting it shoves the problem under the rug. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Very well then, could someone please choose which subsection we should continue this discussion in? Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion is done. Sandy brought up the article; I spotchecked and found problems. You seem to believe this kind of writing is acceptable for main page content. There's nothing more to discuss, but the section should stay as documentation. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Crisco, might I inquire if you were involved over the years the numerous times we've had this same discussion, and nothing has been done about it-- in fact, it's gotten worse? Last time it was other editors, the same denialists and enablers denied the problem, hence the problem is still here. Next week it will be another editor, because your the DYK process is deficient, you've DYK has done nothing to correct it, and it only got worse after last year's Halloween debacle. No, you won't hat it-- as long as every queue has blatant policy violations, and you all do nothing about it, and five (at least) RFCs are running, I will continue to highlight that you've DYK has done zilch, for many years, except shoot the messenger and complain that I'm highlighting yourthe faulty process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate using a less ambiguous term than you, because if you are referring to me (the editor) then I am beginning to consider this a borderline personal attack. I have not done zilch for years, as I have been active at DYK for only a few months; I have not become an enabler (I have tried to review thoroughly); I have tried to correct it, which is why I am here discussing this at 9pm on a Saturday night; I have not "shot the messenger" (I have offered that you try reviewing a couple current noms at least twice, to catch problems before they become problems). As for the copyright issue, I have already noted numerous times; a close paraphrase cannot be considered a blatant copyvio. I have offered a link to the tool to help TK prove his/her statement, although the results seem ambiguous to me. I have also tried to forgive your twisting of my comments. Please, can we discuss this in a neutral and less standoffish manner? None of us right now are stellar examples of civility. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point about my generic vs specific use of "you"-- I have corrected above, it's a frequent fault of mine (as is not knowing full editor names and shortening them, even on TK, an editor I know well). Anyway, once again, you may consider my tone harsh if you think this is a stand-alone incident: it's not, it's a repeat month after month, year after year, that DYK does not address. THe only thing that changes is a new crop of serial offenders and a new crop of enablers/denialists every few months. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply and fix. I've noticed a general distrust of DYK held by numerous editors (especially those active in FA), but this is the first truly contentious debate I have participated in. Right now Billy's hooks are in the process of being double checked. As for the further changes... I do not know. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, the essay on close paraphrasing may be an essay, but it is not so much a stand-alone essay, as a practical interpretation of a very firm and pretty universal policy on copyvios and plagiarism. I agree we need to do something here. I think the first thing is to check if it is more generalised or not. Agree we should all work together and maybe all take a breather. Ha, it's 1 am where I am. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

PS: I guess it also highlights the tightrope walking of content contribution, too close to sources and we veer close to copyvio, too far and it's into OR or synthesis. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It's actually 10... I must have lost track of time Indeed it does, and it is something we need to worry about. However, I don't see a firm definition of when paraphrasing becomes too close. My interpretation is that the article or section would have to be based mostly on one source to be closely paraphrased; if it uses numerous reliable sources, with paraphrasing, to paint a complete picture of the subject, it would be a new creation. Methinks, at least. A cup of tea would be nice... Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) Just to clarify here, Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing is an essay, but it was built to clarify a point of policy that causes confusion: "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, so long as you do not follow the source too closely." (It used to say paraphrase too closely, but that was simplified for users who may be less familiar with the term some time back.) Whether a paraphrase is close enough to reach the level of copyright infringement or not is always going to be complex and based on a number of factors (if taking is substantial in size or importance and the use is not justifiable under fair use or other legal defense, it's a copyvio), but Wikipedia tends to be somewhat conservative on its use of non-free content; obviously, that's a line we don't want to test. :) Articles that follow closely on nonfree sources (one or multiple) are usually tagged for rewriting or, if taking is extensive, blanked with {{copyvio}} for rewriting and listed at WP:CP. (I'm not sure exactly what you mean, Crisco, that "a close paraphrase cannot be considered a blatant copyvio"--if you mean in terms of a speediable vio under WP:CSD#G12, I think that's generally true, unless the paraphrase is very close; however, the courts have tended to have little difficulty in finding infringement in close paraphrasing cases.)

In any event, it's best to catch these articles before they develop too far, which puts DYK into a good position to help here. If we catch problems when they are fresh, we give the contributor an opportunity to learn the way Wikipedia utilizes non-free content ("in your own words", except for brief, explicitly marked quotations), hopefully retaining an enthusiastic contributor. And we keep other contributors from inadvertently investing a lot of time into an article that is fundamentally unretainable (at least without extensive rewriting). I wonder if it would be helpful to occasionally revisit the question of close paraphrasing here, to give reviewers some pointers about what to look for and reminders about why? (Maybe it would be helpful to revisit the unique challenges of sourcing BLPs, too.)

I have not had an opportunity to review concerns in these articles yet beyond what's written here. I'm on my laptop at the moment, away from home, and I'm much more comfortable on my desktop. :/ If there are extensive concerns, a WP:CCI might be a good idea to make sure that problems are identified and addressed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Responded on MRG talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure how Sandy was using blatant, but speedy was my interpretation of it, yes. As I mentioned above, I believe those close paraphrases could still be rewritten. Thanks for the quick, well-worded, thorough reply. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Since Crisco does not see a problem with close paraphrasing (I believe TK set him straight on that, hopefully), he's not the person to be opining on Wikipedia Copyvio. A CCI on Billy Hathorn is needed, but so is an ANI or an RFC; he should not be editing without mentorship or admin oversight. But that is not our issue here: our issue here is that DYK enables and encourages the creation of content that does not meet Wikipedia policies, in fact, DYK regulars are rarely aware, and infrequently concerned, that DYK routinely violates Wikipedia policies. What is DYK doing about content CURRENTLY going on the mainpage that does not meet policy? Until there is some accountability for the admin who puts the content on the mainpage, there will be no long-term change here: this discussion will die away as they always do, and a year from now we'll still find DYK providing endorphin highs to editors who can't write to meet GA or FA standards or even Wikipedia policies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I do believe that I stated numerous times that it could/should be rewritten. Please do not base comments on selective memory. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The show goes on, next again

Today's DYK: Thomas G. Carmody. First, does anyone here care to explain why several of those sources are reliable, or how you can qualify as having expanded an article based on non-reliable sources? More importantly, why, in the midst of this discussion, is DYK STILL doing same ???

• Source: Carmody first made a name for himself in the community in 2003 by pushing for an independent review of the police-related shooting death of Marquise Hudspeth, which made national headlines at the time.

• Article: In 2003, councilman Carmody pushed for an independent review of the police-related shooting death of Marquise Hudspeth, which at the time acquired national headlines.

This is BLATANT. I didn't even check the rest of the article-- that one was only the first I saw. Who approved the hook? And Cas, I'd like to know why you put it on the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

My name came up as the DYK giver as I moved the batch from the prep area to the queue. I wasn't aware of the issues at that point. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Cas-- I appreciate the explanation, because the system and lack of archives here is MUCH too complex for an outsider to understand. So, the next question is, what is DYK doing now to shut down this editor, and who will bring in the copyvio people? He's got hundreds of DYKs that need looking at by people who know copyvio. Must I do everything? SandyGeorgia (Talk)

He still has numerous noms at T:TDYK, which could be double checked. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that is a good place to start, and a friendly word. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, all of those should be put on hold until someone explicitly takes responsibility for checking them for close paraphrasing problems. Are there any in prep and the queues? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

At least one: Ricky Templet in Queue 5. I'll add more if I see them. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Mike Futrell in Prep 3 Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I queried MRG, and now I must get on with my day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sunday July 24

Today's DYK deficiency (quick glance only). My prose size script isn't working today, but another recurring problem in DYKs is that the expansion/size crit are being met by padding articles with text from non-reliable sources and text that doesn't belong in the article. How can DYKers continue to claim that they only need to verify the hook? How are you all determining that crit. are met without checking all sources and reviewing the whole article? DYK encourages and enables the creation of faulty articles. From today:

• Pole Creek Wilderness
  • What makes this a reliable source?
  • Why is this text in the article at all?
    • Wilderness areas do not allow motorized or mechanical equipment including bicycles. Although camping and fishing are allowed with proper permit, no roads or buildings are constructed and there is also no logging or mining, in compliance with the 1964 Wilderness Act. Wilderness areas within National Forests and Bureau of Land Management areas also allow hunting in season.
      • That information belongs in a link about Wilderness Areas.
• So, if you subtract this extraneous or poorly sourced info, does the article meet minimum expansion requirements?

  How does Wikipedia benefit from DYK enabling and encouraging new and old users alike to create content that does not meet Wikipedia policies and will eventually need cleanup? Except for those who continue on to GA or FA, my experience with most DYKers is that they abandon the sloppy stubs after they create them, and they are never cleaned up. DYK has no useful purpose on Wikipedia, and in an environment of declining editorship, we can ill afford this creation of deficient articles.

  I didn't even look for plagiarism today, since as of yet I do not see anyone here doing anything about that already identified. It is apparent that this problem is going to go unchecked, even as I have demonstrated it's been going on for more than three years, because DYKers want their endorphin high from being on the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Continuing the topic of articles being padded to meet DYK expansion requirments, look at one of the current examples of copyvio, already offered for your non-consideration:

• Gordon Dove (Louisiana politician)
  • Dove's only son, Gordon "Bubba" Dove, Jr. (June 7, 1986—March 29, 2009) had helped his father in the operations of the family holdings. At the time of his death, he was the president of Blue Marlin Oilfield and Equipment Rentals, Inc. The younger Dove died at twenty-two in a sport utility vehicle accident on Interstate 310 near Destrehan. He was returning to Houma from a charity concert for Hurricane Katrina victims in New Orleans. Young Dove's vehicle careened across the highway, crashed into the right barrier, and overturned several times. His seat belt was not fastened. Partially thrown out the back window and pinned beneath the SUV, he died at the scene.
• Besides that the content was previously copied, why is this extensive commentary about his son even in this article? And by the way, since when its rootsweb.ancestry a reliable source? How can DYK continue to enable and support and encourage this kind of article creation? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't go along with your push to purge "extraneous" information from DYK articles. That just sics a bunch of deletionists on a new article to be mean. If I looked up Pole Creek Wilderness I definitely would want to know if I'm not allowed to bike there, etc. - and I don't want to hear that I should have known to look up Wilderness Area and assume that some statement there about biking would apply to the area I'd be going. A certain amount of redundancy is allowed between articles under the WP:Summary style organization of Wikipedia, and that means that brief blurbs containing useful information are always acceptable even if a more detailed article exists. Wnt (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Friday, July 29, spot the issues

I'm on vacation, and have firm plans to be waterskiing within the hour. When I get back, I will check to see if I need to blank Dougie (dance), remove the issues myself, of if the DYKer responsible for putting it on the mainpage has beat me to the punch. Spot the issues before I finish waterskiing. If it's not addressed this afternoon when I return, I'll see what I can do, but the person who put it on the mainpage is really the person who should deal with it. Hint: try reading these sources:

• http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2080312,00.html
• http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703805004575606731553244978.html

with a few seconds time, you just might encounter some very familiar text. And does DYK really allow expansion of articles based on WP:TRIVIA? PS, where's that handy-dandy new archive system that will let me figure out who reviewed this hook, who put it on the mainpage, etc? I don't see one, but them I'm not as bright as the average DYK citizen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, I was rephrasing a few sentences of concern in the lede, knowing that I would eventually come back to the article featuring a trivia section. Those things make my head explode. But it was simultaneously edited out, thank you MW software and other editors! SandyG, a) have your issues been addressed? and b) yeah, we all know how dumb and unproductive you are, you're practically useless around here. :) Ease up a bit maybe? A consistent message is important, but stridency just pushes people away from thinking about the issues, instead they focus on the dark hag from some other weird place. (I've seen lots of this wiki, FAC is actually a pretty weird place too). Regards! Franamax (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I have an unabiding hatred for that sort of trivia section, and I was happy to remove it! cmadler (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the archiving: Dougie was nominated almost two weeks before I started the new system, so unless what you want is for me to go back in time and update thousands of DYK nominations to fit the new system, it's not going to be in the new archive. I [thought I] explained how the new archiving system will work twice, here and here.

If you want to know who reviewed it, who promoted it, etc., it's not very hard. Here it was nominated, here it was accepted, here it was promoted to the prep (you can also look at that diff to see the rest of the review discussion), and here it was moved from the prep to the queue. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the diffs, Rjanag-- no, without an archive, it's not easy-- one has to step back through diffs on multiple pages. SO, anyway, we find recurring themes-- Panyd, Sharktopus, and Enclopetey should all know better by now. What is DYK doing about educating reviewers about what to review for? And how is the expansion crit. for a DYK met by adding trivia? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

"I don't see one, but them I'm not as bright as the average DYK citizen." (emphasis mine). Two suggestions, Sandy: first, get thee to the waterskis and lay off the sarcasm; second, if you insist on being sarcastic anyway, don't make goofy typos in the process. Daniel Case (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I always make goofy typos (those "in the know" know that my edit count is so high because I make so many). So, the water was great. Did anyone fix the close paraphrasing (is that what we call blatant cut and paste here at DYK?) So, why are we still missing these cases? No change yet? Has anyone notified the nominator and the reviewer about close paraphrasing, plagiarism, and copyvio so that they can be educated and this can be avoided on other noms and reviews? This is such a frequent occurrence at DYK that someone might want to design a template for educational purposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

On a quick glance only, I still see at least this (there may still be more):

• Article (note that it has a curly quote, which is a cut-and-paste tipoff, since they come from word processers)
  • ... performed the Dougie from the pulpit, and other attendants danced in their seats during a tribute video.
• Source Time magazine
  • did her own version of the Dougie from the pulpit, and funeral-goers danced in their seats during a tribute video ....

Structure is taken from the article, and several word-for-word sections were there the last time I looked. Anyway, of greater importance is whether DYK will educate the nominator and whether there will be institutional memory to check subsequent nominations from the same editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I notified everyone involved (I think?) of this discussion. DYK should really have a template, which will help educate, since this happens so often. This was rather shameful and uncalled for (an admin making a pointy threat to block?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Oops, Daniel, I can conceive that information theft causes outrage, but please note that we need to educate editors, too, and some may come from cultures that have blind-spots about the western notions of copyright (a major problem when foreign students pay to study at anglophone universities). A firm hand is required, but perhaps with a note of encouragement, or "please ask if you have any questions"? Tony (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

OK I'll bite. I moved this approved hook to prep. I did not check the article for copyvios before moving it to prep, but I did, obviously, try to make it better, since I edited it myself. Trivia sections are not forbidden, much as some people hate them. I removed one uncited list item from Dougie Dance and put the rest in chronological order to tidy it up. Every item I left on the list was "notable" enough to have a source cited. I thought the list was interesting, amusing, and relevant, a service to whatever readers of ours might be interested in clicking Dougie Dance.

The overlap of the version of Dougie Dance I approved with wsj[20] is minimal aside from material directly quoted and cited to the source.

The overlap with the other source Sandy objects to:[21] Yeah, I see one objectionable close paraphrase here, 19 words long: "he was the best at doing the dance and on tour he was always the one in the forefront" -- bingo, a direct quote from the source it is copied from with a citation to it. "He helped bring it to the masses" same thing, bingo direct quote, cited to the source. In my opinion, the amount of material taken from each source was not "infringing." Sharktopus ^talk 21:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Sharktopus about the trivia thing. Plagiarism and copyvio are serious issues; trivia, not so much. Sure, an article would be better without it, but cleaning up trivia sections shouldn't in of itself be a requirement for DYK, just as "brilliant prose" and comprehensiveness shouldn't be. That's just taking DYK one step closer to mini-GA. DYK already has a requirement that articles meet core WP policies and guidelines (e.g., verifiability, NPOV, copyvio); it should not be necessary to meet every single guideline that's out there. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that, while I have a deep hatred for that sort of trivia list, cleaning them up is not a DYK requirement. It's also worth noting, in response to Sandy's question ("And how is the expansion crit. for a DYK met by adding trivia?") that, since the trivia was properly formatted as a bulleted list, it didn't count toward article size for DYK purposes. In less time than it is taking to type this sentence, I checked the article history and saw that it was created on July 12, so it was nominated not as an expanded article but as a new article. cmadler (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The point has been missed again, which is that, in spite of years of discussion, copyvio, plagiarism, close paraphrasing et al can routinely be found in any DYK queue, and it takes only a few minutes' glance to find them. But the other point, still unanswered, is not whether you like or dislike TRIVIA sections or whether DYK articles should be "perfect", but how do you determine if the expansion and minimum character counts are met if/when articles are puffed up with non-reliable sources, off-topic text, trivia, and the like? Isn't a verification of expansion or character count a part of the process?

On another point, there were multiple RFCs and changes discussed at once, and occurring in multiple places; could anyone summarize what changes/improvements have been made over the last week, since these discussions started, in one place? Is DYK still saddled with the requirement that inexperienced editors review hooks here (Quid Pro Quo reviewing), which still seems to be one of the biggest problems here, and is there as yet any sort of accountability, directorate, or panel of admins responsible for not putting copyvio and content that doesn't meet Wikipedia's most basic policies on the main page? A summary of what DYK has done to stem the tide of problems would be most appreciated (and a templated checklist is NOT going to stop these issues). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

As I already mentioned once, directly above Sandy's comment, a bulleted list does not count toward article size/expansion, because it is not considered "readable prose". Further, as I also mentioned directly above Sandy's comment, this was obviously submitted as a new article not an expanded article. Sandy, you might do well to actually read what others are writing before your respond. cmadler (talk) 11:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes to QPQ, no to directorate. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, QPQ is gone??? Thanks Rjanag ... Cool beans ... that should help a wee bit (not enough though), archives will add some accountability, but without full accountability, we're going to be right back here in a few months. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

No, QPQ is not gone. I was saying yes to "Is DYK still saddled with the requirement....". rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• I for one welcome our new overlord and look forward to Sandy's coming back from waterskiing so I can learn about another major emergency that requires us all to stop building an encyclopedia and race around searching for infractions of policy so terrible that Wikipedia will die if they hit the front page. And pointing angry fingers at volunteers whose crime is that we did the actual work to make DYK happen, but didn't put in extra hours required to find every flaw that could be hyperexaggerated for campaigning against DYK. Did people here notice that User:Khazar has now quit, not just DYK, but Wikipedia?[22] Sharktopus ^talk 15:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Is personalizing of issues and attacking the messenger a regular DYK thing, or is it just the domain of a few regular DYKers? How about do something useful-- go look at the latest queue and find the latest copyvio before I have to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• It saddens me that Khazar's left, this is what I've said repeatedly over the last few months that would happen. That good contributors will leave the project because of all the aggression that's been going on. I remember back when users were encouraged to make DYK nominations, and blossomed as contributors because of their involvement with the project. Right now we're heading down a steep hill, step by step. Manxruler (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm unclear why some remember the "Good old days" of DYK; I seem to have missed those, as I've been hearing how many issues there were here for at least five years, and every time I've tipped my toe into the DYK section of the mainpage, I've seen exactly why. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you, Sandy. That's pretty much what I was talking about. In my view you're overestimating the problems with the DYK nominations. The issues at DYK are no greater than at the rest of Wikipedia, in fact DYK is one of the very best parts of Wikipedia, because it involves a wide spectrum of contributors, and an equally wide field of topics.

Should Wikipedia, as you have promoted, get rid of DYK, it will lose a vital part of what makes the project as good as it is. I would guess that along with DYK would disappear a not unsubstantial number of very competent contributors, people like the aforementioned Khazar, who contributed articles to an important and under-represented field. Several others have also already thrown in the towel. These were competent content contributors, not copyright violators, or the often-mentioned editors "playing DYK" by creating articles that only barely make the DYK standards. Who are these editors, anyway? I look at DYK quite often, and I seldom see such articles. Most of the articles I see are actually quite good, created by good contributors who are now being told that they've been failing in improving Wikipedia. But, it's all for the best, right? Manxruler (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Saturday, July 30, the debacle continues, more than a week in

• DYK: Elisabeth Croft as it appeared on the main page
• Source: The Independent obit (mislabled in the sources, btw :)

OK, would someone here like to:

1. spot the issues,
2. correct the issues,
3. figure out who reviewed the hook, who passed it to prep, and who put it on the main page
4. notify the article talk, the nominator, and all of those people?

I'm beginning to realize that DYK does not care about copyvio, plagiarism, close paraphrasing, or anything, because every queue has 'em. Perhaps placing the daily debacles on the main page errors reports will draw more attention to the fact that DYK is unable to address the issues. I'm aware that you all either don't care to address the issues or are unable to even do the most cursory review of what is going on the mainpage, but seriously ... this is getting embarrassing.

Has anyone yet developed a DYK copyvio template that can be used for notification and education, since this is a daily occurrence and posting personal notes to all the editors who contributed to putting copvyio, plagiarism and close paraphrasing on the main page is a repetitive task-- you may as well have a bot do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking here, I've tagged the page, as it should be scrubbed from history. Folks, please, whose job is this and why are you rewarding this kind of work and doing nothing about it this far in ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I just spent the last 30 minutes rewriting and was edit conflicted out of saving. It's a short article and can easily be rewritten. And yes, it is copyvio. Anyway, I guess it's okay to leave the tag. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Look at the first edit: a complete copyvio. I think (but someone should ask MRG) such clearcut copyvio has to be scrubbed from history, and we don't do Wikipedia or the offending editors any favors by fixing them, since the copyvio remains in history. What is ... ahem ... intriguing is that the reviewer noted it was all from one source originally, so there is NO reason for that reviewer not to have seen the blatant copyvio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, it should be taken out of history. I didn't actually look at the edits; saw your post, looked at the page, and started rewriting. Anyway, this should not have slipped by. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I do hope you all realize that I am only checking one a day, if that-- I shudder to think how much copyvio is going up that no one is even looking at. I find one by looking a mere ten minutes per day, so that's a good indication of how serious the issues probably are, and again, that NO ONE here is checking what is going on the main page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It's good fun, isn't it? I also sometimes correct issues with DYKs that make it on to the main page, so it seems that the system is working quite well. Imagine if those copyvios hadn't had the main page exposure - they could have sat in those articles for years. Yomangani^talk 22:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Good fun? A sense of satisfaction in catching it, but let's make no mistake, this is BLP territory, it's a death, which makes it more emotionally charged, and the text-theft is from a biggie. Our reputation is at stake if this kind of thing keeps popping up on the main page. Tony (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• I notice the creator of this only claims 1 DYK on their user page, plus 1 GA and 5 GA reviews. Johnbod (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Am I reading the wrong user page? That is incorrect? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• [[23]] User boxes 2-4 Johnbod (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Look further down the page, at DYK's Written/Expanded. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• • The GA, Dotty Cotton also has issues:
    • Source: It was decided she was too old for that character, but producers liked what they saw and offered her an audition for the part of Dottie.
    • Article: Conlin had auditioned for the part of Tiffany Dean but it was decided that she was too old for the part, but the producers liked what they saw and auditioned her for the part of Dotty. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Actually Yomangani has a point. Blaise Pascal stood as a core FA, and a copyvio, for 6 years, and it would stand like that for ages if an anon won't bring this up recently. I also agree that DYK articles are better on average than others. Did anyone raise a point that most articles linked (unbolded) from the main page are in much worse, and often disastrous, state and that this should be the priority in the main page cleanup; that there is a mainpage culture of wlinking any uncommon term without looking what is being linked? Materialscientist (talk) 04:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

MS, a very good reason to link only very judiciously to secondary targets on the main page. I've been calling for this for some time, both for policy-compliance and quality-checking reasons, and to avoid diluting hits on the actual subject articles that have been properly scrutinised. Tony (talk) 04:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not that simple. ITN articles are not scrutinized even when bolded. Many, if not most, fresh ITN articles have bare-url refs and problems with sourcing and prose, and get cleaned up quickly while on the main page. My point is that WP is work in progress, and that main page helps fixing the problems ASAP. That only a part of main page content and links is actually screened. Materialscientist (talk) 04:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Well ITN needs a clean-up if not even the subject articles are checked for copyvio, plagiarism, RS, and other basic compliance. "main page helps fixing the problems ASAP"—are you suggesting that the main page is a dumping ground to stimulate proper auditing? If so, I think it's around the wrong way: the auditing should occur before main-page exposure. Tony (talk) 04:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that if someone wants WP main page to represent its best content, they should start a WP-wide RFC proposing a global redesign; providing scrutiny for every main page section (which is nearly non-existent now). What is happening now, is that DYK is picked up as a scapegoat and is being suppressed entirely. Does main page get better - not really, because of junk in other sections. Does WP get better - no, because proper writers, our best asset, get driven away from WP, not just DYK. The key is, off course, we need to cleanup copyvios, factual errors, etc., but we should do that with a smile, showing personal example, and helping good-faith editors who simply don't know how. Most time should be spent on articles, leaving brief notes here when you needs help. The opposite is happening - highly capable editors are spending most of their time on talking to each other. Materialscientist (talk) 05:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, everything on the main page needs a cleanup, but who is going to do it? Everyone is always in favour of higher standards as long as it's somebody else doing the work. The reason plagiarism is rife on the encyclopedia is because finding it is a tedious chore that nobody wants to be stuck with. If somebody would like to pay me $25 an hour, I'm happy to spend several hours a day cleaning up plagiarism - otherwise, I'm a volunteer, doing the things I like to do, and if you try and impose your chores on me, I will just find some other area of the project to participate - or maybe just find a new hobby altogether. Gatoclass (talk) 04:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Gato, I see nothing wrong in what you do, only the opposite, and thus believe nobody should tell you what to do. Pessimists are to be ignored, as unconstructive :-). Materialscientist (talk) 06:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't intended as a personal statement, my point is that this is how users are going to react if you try to force them to jump through too many hoops - they are simply going to take their contributions elsewhere. Tony is a professional editor, he doesn't seem to understand that this is not a professional publication where people get paid, it's a volunteer project, and you can't require volunteers to do things they're not interested in doing.

Speaking personally, I'm not quite at the stage where I'm willing to walk away from DYK, otherwise I wouldn't be contributing to discussions about its future. However, if I think the conditions imposed on this project become too onerous, I certainly will walk away from it, and find some corner of the project where my contributions are better appreciated. And I think I'll be far from alone in doing so. Gatoclass (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think cleaning up the mainpage, or any significant part of Wikipedia, is remotely doable, since I don't doubt that 85% of Wikipedia contains copyvio, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. Discussing the global problems of Wikipedia is a distraction from the specific problem of DYK, which is that it *rewards* copyvio and plagiarism by putting repeat offenders on the mainpage, over and over, for years, without educating them in better editing and Wikipedia policy, and creating thousand of deficient articles that are never cleaned up, in fact, often abandoned as soon as the editor gets their bauble.

Has anyone yet written a template that can be used each time these instances are found? Something is needed that links the offending editors and reviewers to all of the relevant educational pages, notifies DYK, notifies the article talk, notifies mainpage errors, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that, a week in, the "reward culture" of DYK hasn't got much of an airing. I would have thought that would have been a prime topic for discussion, but apparently which way a template should be orientated trumps it. Yomangani^talk 01:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

History

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page

Recapping the October 2010 debacle, which began with these cases:

• Malta Test Station; plagiarism, stayed on mainpage with copyvio tag, got almost 3,000 hits, ANI
• Spring Canyon, Utah; WP:Close paraphrasing and non-reliable, commercial source, found at RFA
• Jameela Jamil; non-reliable sources, BLP, on mainpage but DYK pulled it as soon as I let them know, DYK Talk
• Black Eyed Kids; non-reliable sources, notability not established, only one RS, I alerted DYK and they still ran it on mainpage with maintenance tags, DYK talk Was previously deleted, then recreated, still no reliable sources, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Eyed Kids (3rd nomination)
• William S. Stevens; WP:Close paraphrasing and structure, SG talk discussion during RFA

culminating in the discovery of copyvio in a former arb's former FA (Grace Sherwood), an event which seems to have obscured memories about the seriousness of the issue at DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Sandy, that was an interesting discussion to read. I'd like to list here what I found most valuable, a series of statements all made by MoonRiddenGirl.

• • Something may be both a copyright problem and plagiarism. It may be only a copyright problem, if the content is fully attributed but still violates our copyright policies (as with overly extensive quotations). It may be only plagiarism if the content that isn't attributed is public domain. Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• • From a copyright standpoint, very close paraphrasing is only okay when (a) content is not creative or (b) the close paraphrasing meets fair use. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• • As others have pointed out, DYK is not the cause of the problem; the cause of the problem is contributors who either don't understand how to use sources or don't care to try. (If DYK were the cause, we wouldn't have dozens of WP:CCIs of people who've never been near DYK. If only. :/) DYK is actually a really good forum for locating these contributors so that their misunderstandings/wanton disregard can be detected and appropriately addressed. It could become a very valuable teaching/screening tool if the DYK reviewers are willing and able to watch out for copyright/plagiarism concerns. I know this would increase the onus on them, and I can't really volunteer to help out with that screening because I have my hands more than full with known copyright problems at WP:CP and CCI. It would be helpful here if we could improve and perhaps elevate to guideline Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. I routinely point to it and to the writing suggestions under "Avoiding plagiarism" at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches when dealing with people who have this issue. It can take some time to teach people who to rewrite properly, but I've seen contributors overcome the problem. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• • I think scrapping DYK would be a mistake. Copyright infringement and close paraphrasing that may not quite cross the line into copyright infringement but remain problematic are rampant on Wikipedia. (Frankly, if I were going to close something down for copyright issues, it would be articles related to television shows. People copy and paste content into them all the time. But I wouldn't suggest that, either; we just need to keep educating people.) I see the occasional former DYK show up in CCI or at CP, but I don't think I see them in high enough percentage to suggest that DYK is a significant contributing factor here. We probably do need to be more aggressive in blocking copyright infringers. (I myself gave a two week block recently to somebody I should have indeffed. :/) But copyright is complex, and people who show an effort should be given latitude to learn. Plagiarists, by contrast, can so easily repair the problem that only people who are willfully ignoring attribution requirements or flatly incompetent should persist after one or two warnings anyway. To help prevent this in the future, DYK reviewers might just be aware of potential issues. Certainly, they should see if content is copied in the hook when they verify it (if it isn't a print source). Other red flags that they could keep an eye out for: (1) in a new article, was there a Corensearchbot notice placed early in history? (2) Are there changes of competency in writing, with some content seeming professional or near-professional quality while other text is far beneath that standard? (3) Are there changes of tone in writing style, which might suggest that content has been copied from editorials or personal webpages? (4) Does the contributor have a history of copyright warnings? Honestly, I think one of the best things to do might be to create some kind of DYK problem template whereby a reviewer who finds such red flags can request additional review of the material in comparison to sources. That way, contributors who find red flags that worry them can get assistance from those who feel more confident researching such issues. The challenge would be creating an environment where the tag is not a deadly insult to the content creator. Not sure if that's even possible. People have a hard time responding dispassionately to plagiarism/copyright concerns. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, thanks for bringing this material to the attention of people who missed the discussion first time around. Sharktopus ^talk 15:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thursday, August 4

I haven't reviewed DYKs for several days (last time I dipped in, I got sidetracked by Really Poor Prose, but I don't consider that a DYK issue, since the articles are new and not supposed to be to standard). Anyway, I looked at the latest queue:

• Techno Cumbia
• Text expansion by Ajona 1992
  • I see that work was done (but I think no subpage yet, if I'm reading correctly?)
  • Not a DYK issue per se, but the lead is WAY too long, and there is uncited data in the lead. If the expansion crit. is met by padding the lead, shouldn't that be flagged as not meeting expansion crit?
  • A whole lot of {{failed verification}} is present-- WAY too much to tag, but makes it dubious that the expansion crit. is met.
  • Serious prose issues: sample. While the remix version had instrumentations such as the piano, keyboards, horns and largely on beats.[9]
  • Before I continue, a whole ton of text is cited to
    • a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t "Techno Cumbia music chart history on Billboard". Billboard. Retrieved July 12, 2011.
      • Since expansion is one of the criterion at DYK, could someone please locate the text from the cited source?
  • I hoped to check for copyvio on Spanish sources, but find none of them available (yet), still looking, but got sidetracked by the numerous failed verfications. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The Billboard reference appears to be just a bunch of charts; it doesn't have text. In the article, all references to it that I checked are plain statements about the song's chart positions at various times. I don't see any problems with that. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Helpful tools to identify plagiarism/copyvios

In regards to the peristent copyvio/plagiarism problems at DYK, I wanted to list some helpful tools for reviewers. These work best with websites. For books, the ol' search or side-to-side comparison is needed.

• Duplication Detector
  • Can compare two different URLs and/or files.
  • For the best accuracy, use the current article revision, not the default URL. I.e http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Channel_(geography)&oldid=440965051 not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_(geography).
  • Always read the non-bolded words around the matched text in a comparison. Although a few words may only match, close-paraphrasing may be apparent.
• The Earwig Copyright Violation Detector
  • Just be careful of mirrors.
• Internet Archive's Wayback Machine
  • Very helpful in determining the age of a webpage. With this you can determine whether another site mirrored one of our articles.
  • Works best with websites based in the U.S.

A great how-to guide can also be found here.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Duplication Dictator is lots of fun. Hmmm, let's see... random Geography GAs... nope, nope... nope ..., here is one [24] (Ein Avdat from here). Close enough to check same editor's others articles... yup: Al-Muallaq Mosque almost verbatim from here. And let's see... [25] and [26], Rochdale Town Hall from here and here, not as bad but definitely in the "close paraphrase" territory. This too I think [27]. So about 30 mins of searching yields 3 potential copyvio/close paraphrase GAs + 1 old DYK (and I notice lots of these GAs have a buttload of deadlinks)Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Before we cast too many aspersions at the clearly-failed GA process, I've personally been the 'victim' of the reverse effect: a website copies the prose from Wikipedia verbatim without credit or reference. The team history on the Oklahoma Thunder official website seems darned familiar, for example, because I wrote it here and they copied it there. - Dravecky (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That's an excellent point, which I've also encounted, hence Volunteer Marek's suggestion to use the Wayback Machine to check for that exact issue. cmadler (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

One thing that should be done, if using these checking tools, is to not to state anything purely on the results obtained, but to take the time to open the sources and read them together with the article, and to make sure you can justify any conclusions you come to. Blithely stating that something is a potential copyvio/close paraphrase is a bit of a cop-out. It either is or isn't, or you are not sure. Saying it might be, based purely on an automated check is not that helpful if not followed up. And if you conclude that it is problematic, you need to be able to justify that based on a reading of the sources and the article, not just a regurgitation of what an automatic checker has picked up. This is, though, time-consuming for longer articles. If an article is fairly long, it should be acceptable to say that spotchecks have been done (and there is a page around somewhere with tips on how to carry out spotchecks). Carcharoth (talk) 04:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Better still ... (sadly, CorenSearchBot not working now)

We have a great bot that searches new articles for copyvio. Why can't it, or a similar bot, be programmed to search articles that have suddenly undergone expansion as well? This is a greater issue than DYK; doing so would benefit the entire project since, obviously, copyvio or plagiarism isn't just introduced when an article is created. Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Good tool I forgot to mention. You can manually check articles as well. The bot has been down the past few days though.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, that helps, but it is severely limited: you get false positives from sites that derive material from Wikipedia (particularly for expand noms, since those tend to have been around longer), and false negatives, for example where the source used is offline. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

No one said it was perfect ... those have always been issues with plagiarism. Perhaps the bot's programming could be altered to exclude known mirrors, or put them in a separate list. And there's really nothing we can do about plagiarism of offline sources, but not all plagiarists are that smart. Daniel Case (talk) 14:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Sad to say, Coren's searchbot is out of service and has been since July 25:User_talk:Coren#CSBot_down. The free API it was using disappeared and Coren is working to get a new one going as of his most recent post on the topic today, August 1. Sharktopus ^talk 13:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Corenbot's usefulness is limited-- it won't address DYK's problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)