|
Victuallers has voluntarily agreed to recuse himself from any DYK involvement with Gibraltar-related nominations.
Please place your comments within each section applicable.Maile66 (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Holding area for all DYK Gibraltar-related nominations existent at the time moratorium goes into effect
- Review criteria should include all standard DYK rules, and also scrutiny of promotional or COI aspects
- New Gibraltar-related nominations rejected for duration of moratorium
- GibraltarPediA members not allowed to review the nominations
- IP addresses are not allowed to nominate or review Gibraltar-related articles
- When moratorium is lifted, Gibraltar-related DYK nominations require two reviews by two separate reviewers
- Review criteria to include all standard DYK rules, and also scrutiny of promotional or COI aspects
- Limitations placed on number and frequency of Gibraltar hooks promoted to the front page
- Users who promote hooks to the prep area and the administrators who move hook sets to the queue need to be responsible for ensuring that each Gibraltar-related hook meets above guidelines
- Support: Assuming that all current hooks remain to be promoted at an appropriate time and that it's just new ones that are not allowed. I think this is best as it deals with the COI's and makes sure nothing slips through. It also starves the "competition" partially of oxygen so people stop making Gibraltar articles just for DYK in order get cheap points to get the prize as well as takes some of the media heat off. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How long is this moratorium to continue, and what will bring it to an end? Will the same approach be taken with WikiCup? Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose as extreme, punitive and unnecessary. An indefinite moratorium is little better than a completely undeserved collective punishment for the editors who are contributing DYKs in this topic area. It assumes, with no basis whatsoever, that any DYK related to Gibraltar is somehow unacceptable. It amounts to telling editors, including anyone in Gibraltar who wants to contribute, that their efforts aren't wanted. As an example, I'm writing a series of 12 articles on the sieges of Gibraltar and I will also probably tackle the history of Islamic Gibraltar. I was writing about Gibraltar years before Gibraltarpedia. I have an outstanding track record of FAs, GAs and DYKs, some of which are among the all-time most read articles in those categories. I have no COIs whatsoever in this area. Why should I accept my DYKs being refused if they meet the DYK criteria? Prioryman (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose This has collateral damage being an over reaction. I was considering writing an article on a Gibraltar topic myself, by expanding a redirect that I made a few years back. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All DYK Gibraltar-related nominations will go into a special holding area from the time they are nominated
- Nominations continue, with special guidelines as below
- Any registered user other than Victuallers can create and nominate Gibraltar-related articles to DYK
- IP addresses are not allowed to nominate or review Gibraltar-related nominations
- Gibraltar-related DYK nominations require two reviews by two separate reviewers (One of the two reviewers should not be connected to GibraltarPediA)
- Review criteria to include all standard DYK rules, and also scrutiny of promotional or COI aspects
Limitations placed on number and frequency of No more than one Gibraltar hook promoted to the front page per day- Users who promote hooks to the prep area and the administrators who move hook sets to the queue need to be responsible for ensuring that each Gibraltar-related hook meets above guidelines.
- Support. We've had a moratorium while we decide what to do. Once we do decide, I believe continuing a moratorium just hurts contributors and gives the appearance that we feel there's something wrong with having Gibraltar hooks per se. An extra layer of careful scrutiny singles them out sufficiently and should suffice to mitigate any problems; they should then be considered on the merits. I also don't think we should place any additional limits on how many Gibraltar-related hooks we promote than we normally do when we have articles on related topics (i.e., no more than two such hooks per set, and usually no more than one per set). The extra scrutiny and extra time - plus potentially discouragement from the scandal - will already retard any flood of Gibraltar-related hooks we might have been heading for, and our normal limitation policies worked fine for Monmouthpedia. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. This is certainly the most sensible way to go about this. I would add though, that no editor involved in the Gibraltarpedia project should be allowed to review hooks related to that project. Yazan (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Excluding Gibraltarpedia editors entirely from reviews would be counterproductive; as some of them are subject matter experts you would, for instance, block them from raising issues with other editors' DYKs on this topic. I suggest that your proposal would be more workable if you said that they should not approve DYKs. They should be free to contribute their views rather than being shut out entirely. Prioryman (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Everyone is allowed to give their two cents, ofcourse. By review I mean giving the article a tick of approval. As has been demonstrated, several of their reviews for Gibraltar articles were erroneous. I'll AGF on the fact that they are new editors, and may not be well-versed in DYK review, and they may just be eager to help a friend out. Furthermore, Gibraltar-related articles are not such a complex subject that they would need an expert.
- I should add, that this should be common sense, I don't dare review any hook for people I cooperate with on regular basis, for fear of the appearance and/or subconscious COI. Yazan (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How about this. The above-proposal calls for two reviewers on any nom. If one is part of the project, then the second one should not be. That would allow for the expertise Prioryman mentions, and act as a safeguard on COI. Maile66 (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds reasonable. We need to bear in mind that many of this project's contributors are in fact native Gibraltarians, and their local expertise should be welcomed, not pushed away. Prioryman (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, a sticky situation. I've been a bit concerned about what this whole controversy has set in motion. Loose cannon type of thing. It's not the ones on the talk pages. It's the ones who aren't there, but might have decided to set their own guide liines. We need some kind of consensus, whatever that might be. Maile66 (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, per Yngvadottir, with Yazan addition, for approval, rather than review. Editors also in the competition should mention this when commenting (NB, I'm a WMUK trustee but haven't otherwise been involved in the project or edited Gib articles that I can remember). Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Grudging support. It's unnecessary in itself, but if it's the only way to end the witch hunt, put the pitchforks back in the barn and douse the flaming torches, then let's do it. Prioryman (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with the caveat that item 7 is problematic since it does not settle exactly what the limitations would be. (Maximum of one Gibraltar-related hook per set, one per day, or what?) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I don't think any of this is necessary, because we should be absolutely ignoring outside world opinions on interior subjects, otherwise we will end up being biased and violating our own NPOV code. Extra scrutiny is fine to some extent, but we should make absolutely sure that we're not going to drive away the new editors that have been diligently making these quite good new articles. SilverserenC 20:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nothing wrong with endorsing good articles. Shii (tock) 04:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- As per conversation above with Prioryman, I have made a slight adjustment to the two reviewers required, stating that one should not be connected to GibraltarPediA.
- I have specified the frequency and number of Gibraltar hooks to one per day.
- Please feel free to comment on those.Maile66 (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how we'll keep track of who's Gibraltar- or GibraltarPedia-affiliated and who isn't, but we'll have to manage :-) What I think is more important is that the second review is visibly thorough. I still disagree with having a special cap on number of Gibraltar hooks, however. Recall that we always limit the number of hooks on related topics in a given set; beyond that I think it assumes bad faith. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. At least defining it to a specific number above gives people here a chance to have their say on it. We can strike anything from this, if the editors who comment here don't want a particular something.Maile66 (talk) 12:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Regardless of potential COI issues on the top end of the Gibraltarpedia project, these articles have been written by volunteer editors no different than myself or other DYK volunteers (to the best of my knowledge). These editors are good-faith members of the community and should not be excluded from any processes. If they meet the requirements, that's that. Of course, we may need to further discuss what to do with any similar editing drives that produce high numbers of noms in relatively short periods. The Interior (Talk) 17:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Gibraltarpedia editors were given {previously} undisclosed {at DYK nom} insentives to write about Gibraltar and nominate those specific articles for the front page exposure. Our DYK reviewers need to be made aware of that, so they won't be duped into becoming unwilling or uninformed meatpuppets simply because of the existing QPQ requirement. Poeticbent talk 20:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See: List of insentives (top contributors).[1] What I said is true! Poeticbent talk
- GibraltarpediA glass trophy (This will look great! and will be made just for this competition)
- QRpedia plaque that links to your userpage or any other Wikipedia article
- GibraltarpediA tshirt
- signed book
- Gibraltarpedia metal badge
- Poeticbent talk 21:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Support We do have to be careful that our over reaction to an issue does not cause even more damage. Having too many rules makes it harder and harder for new people to review for DYK. Anyway to get this moving we should agree on something. I would be happy relaxing the publication rate limit to one per set. We only need a special holding area if there is a build up of approved DYKs faster than appearance. Also we should think how these rules could be generalised to cope with similar situations where a group is strongly motivated to pump a lot of material into DYK and cause controversy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Graeme, I would welcome any input you could offer in revising the above guidelines. I agree that a simplified compromise needs to be worked out. We don't want to discourage writers. And we want to avoid the appearance of COI. Maile66 (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, but it's obviously preferable to the moratoruium - This is completely overblown. A government is encouraging the creation of quality articles about its domain, this is excellent. Monmouthpedia was excellent, our GLAM projects do great things. Of course improving articles regarding the British Library collection will send more web traffic to the British Library, there's nothing wrong with that - this is win-win, regardless of whether or not someone is making money from it. DYK has always been about encouraging the creation and expansion of articles, it goes hand in hand with these external projects. There should be no moratorium, we should treat Gibraltarpedia nominations like any other, aside from requiring a non-gibraltarpedia editor review the hooks. No idea why they need to be reviewed twice as suggested above, or that their frequency be limited to one a day. If they're DYK quality articles, they should be on DYK. - hahnchen 14:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually though "improving articles regarding the British Library collection will send more web traffic to the British Library" is true, the evidence suggests there is not significantly more web traffic. The pioneer of GLAM collaborations, the British Museum, found in their analysis about 1 yr into their GLAM project that although all articles had links to the BM site, the level of click-through was low. This was reported by Matthew Cock, their Head of Web, to a museum conference over a year ago. They assess the impact of WP GLAM work in terms of WP/Commons stats, not those for their own sites, and look at it in terms of meeting their mission by improving knowledge of their collection & cultural history etc generally. Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not even a high click through rate, so why are we supporting the constraining of Gibraltar DYKs? - hahnchen 13:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have created a dataset of all DYks so far: Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA/DYKs. The biggest surprise is that the vast majority of these articles were written by user:ACP2011, with user:Gibmetal77 and user:Victuallers coming second and third. Only six DYK'ed articles were written by people other than those three. While I say 'Only', I appreciate that it is very hard to attract six people to a project. I think one per day is too frequent. That is allowing more than the 17 Gibraltar DYKs in August that were reported in the media (my dataset confirms that that number looks about right). But I think the most important outcome of my dataset is that I think we should require that GibraltarpediA DYKs must always (without any exception) review a non-GibraltarpediA DYK. Also I would like each GibraltarpediA DYK page to include a link to the GibraltarpediA points page (or a dedicated 'for-reviewers' page) so that reviewers are forewarned that they are helping someone win a prize. I am sure that throughput will continue as most reviewers wont care, but there are some people who are complaining that volunteers may be misled (though I cant see that any of those concerned about this actually did any reviews for GibraltarpediA DYKs). It helps to be completely above board and in-your-face with disclosure. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your excellent dataset, John Vandenberg. As we can see, user ACP2011 (talk · contribs) has the best chance of winning the top prize: a VIP trip to Gibraltar.[2] Poeticbent talk 00:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's good, since she's a mom from Chicago. It would be kind of silly for someone actually in Gibraltar to win the trip. Anne (ACP2011) was actually involved a lot on MonmouthpediA as well and did a lot of good work there too. SilverserenC 05:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the consensus is to put them back into the normal rotation, to give them extra scrutiny, sure, and to only allow 1 per day at maximum (probably 1 per 2-3 days would be better). But, are we done then? Because having the Gibraltar articles in a special section at T:TDYK is just making them not get reviewed and several of them are ready to go. SilverserenC 23:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed at DYK -Promoting_the_already-approved_Gibraltar_noms, it's time to close this topic. 00:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe a note on WP:AN to attract one of those admin types? The Interior (Talk) 00:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Maile66 (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
