DYKs - Do you care ...?

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Mar 04, 2013 10:30 pm

Can we have a thread on particularly boring DYKs? Here's one:

6:00, 4 March 2013

Did you know ... that the nomoli statues (pictured) discovered in Sierra Leone are of unknown origin?

Malleus · Unread post by **Malleus** » Mon Mar 04, 2013 10:33 pm

Outsider wrote:Can we have a thread on particularly boring DYKs? Here's one:

6:00, 4 March 2013

Did you know ... that the nomoli statues (pictured) discovered in Sierra Leone are of unknown origin?

DYK has been a joke for years now, but nobody seems to care.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Tue Mar 05, 2013 12:58 am

Your right Malleus. In both statements

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:12 am

Outsider wrote:Can we have a thread on particularly boring DYKs? Here's one:

6:00, 4 March 2013

Did you know ... that the nomoli statues (pictured) discovered in Sierra Leone are of unknown origin?

That's more than just boring... it's spectacularly devoid of information.

Edit: Added 'DYKs' to title.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Tue Mar 05, 2013 2:49 pm

In the nine years since they began appearing, I can probably count the number of times I've clicked on a "DYK" on the fingers of one hand. They appear to exist mainly for the purpose of providing a social-climbing bureaucracy game within Wikipedia so that people can give themselves "awards" on their user pages.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Tue Mar 05, 2013 8:03 pm

Hex wrote:In the nine years since they began appearing, I can probably count the number of times I've clicked on a "DYK" on the fingers of one hand. They appear to exist mainly for the purpose of providing a social-climbing bureaucracy game within Wikipedia so that people can give themselves "awards" on their user pages.

Correct. I have not even attempted to look at the DYK "system", because it is beneath notice.

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Tue Mar 05, 2013 8:59 pm

EricBarbour wrote:
Hex wrote:In the nine years since they began appearing, I can probably count the number of times I've clicked on a "DYK" on the fingers of one hand. They appear to exist mainly for the purpose of providing a social-climbing bureaucracy game within Wikipedia so that people can give themselves "awards" on their user pages.
Correct. I have not even attempted to look at the DYK "system", because it is beneath notice.

Perhaps you should. Its where Bamkin aimed his shameless attempt at turning wikipedia into the Gibraltar tourist board after all. If less people thought like you - someone might have noticed a bit earlier what he was doing.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:34 pm

Anroth wrote:Perhaps you should. Its where Bamkin aimed his shameless attempt at turning wikipedia into the Gibraltar tourist board after all. If less people thought like you - someone might have noticed a bit earlier what he was doing.

If you're willing to help me, by making random samples of past DYK posts so I can analyze them statistically, then I'd be interested.

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Wed Mar 06, 2013 7:22 am

I actually started doing that as a personal project into the quality of DYK a couple months ago. Unfortunately life got very very busy so I wasnt able to finish it.

After some random sampling of DYK's from 2012, I was finding was there is/was a clear correlation between the 'good quality' DYK's and specific reviewing editors. And by 'good quality' I wasnt going by subjective criteria, I was concentrating on basic things like writing quality (spelling, punctuation) and even then I was being quite relaxed. A couple of transposed letters here and there - ok. Using 'Supposebly' - not so ok. But also basic article things like correct sourcing. Does the source/ref support the statement in the article.

Unsurprisingly, those reviewers who stuck to the letter of the DYK submission criteria tended to vary from 'bad' to 'okay but boring'. While those reviewers who looked in more detail (Are the sources that are NOT related to the hook ok, that sort of thing) tended to promote/review more interesting and better written DYK's. I asked a few questions of the various reviewers, however I got a bit of hostility from those following the letter, and again unsurprisingly, much more co-operation from those reviewers going out of their way to check extra stuff.

I dont consider a badly written/poor DYK the fault of ther main article creator, I consider its inclusion on the main page as a fault of the reviewer who passed it.

Moswento · Unread post by **Moswento** » Fri Mar 08, 2013 8:47 am

Anroth wrote:I dont consider a badly written/poor DYK the fault of ther main article creator, I consider its inclusion on the main page as a fault of the reviewer who passed it.

I agree. The "Quid Pro Quo" system at DYK encourages a lot of lazy reviewing.

Jaranda · Unread post by **Jaranda** » Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:17 pm

The history of DYK is rather difficult to explain. Many content administrators are involved in that area, but there is a difficulty finding good-quality articles for that process for various reasons. Primarily, the process has become mostly bureaucratized, with certain editors trying to control the reviewing process. I gave up on it after an incident in which one reviewer wouldn't promote an article I expanded because it wasn't 5x expansion but something like 4.6x and I started arguing with them and noticed it was a hopeless drama. Many of these "reviewers" doesn't even go though the articles and just passes them right away as there is a rule that if you want to submit an article for DYK, you need to "review" another candidate. Thus we had BLP violations (one if I'm not mistaken was poorly sourced libel that JzG nuked on site) and most importantly copyvios on the main page in a frequent basis. SandyGeorgia did an amazing job in exposing all those copyright violations from DYK, but it's still a broken process with uninteresting hooks ... that "Like You" was Daddy Yankee's second best performing single in the United States in 2005 behind "Gasolina"?" a recent example, and people who are more interested in winning the WikiCup and not really checking the hooks correctly.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Fri Mar 29, 2013 10:09 pm

Jaranda wrote:people who are more interested in winning the WikiCup

The what?

Oh good grief.

Malleus · Unread post by **Malleus** » Sat Mar 30, 2013 12:21 am

Jaranda wrote:The history of DYK is rather difficult to explain. Many content administrators are involved in that area, but there is a difficulty finding good-quality articles for that process for various reasons. Primarily, the process has become mostly bureaucratized, with certain editors trying to control the reviewing process. I gave up on it after an incident in which one reviewer wouldn't promote an article I expanded because it wasn't 5x expansion but something like 4.6x and I started arguing with them and noticed it was a hopeless drama. Many of these "reviewers" doesn't even go though the articles and just passes them right away as there is a rule that if you want to submit an article for DYK, you need to "review" another candidate. Thus we had BLP violations (one if I'm not mistaken was poorly sourced libel that JzG nuked on site) and most importantly copyvios on the main page in a frequent basis. SandyGeorgia did an amazing job in exposing all those copyright violations from DYK, but it's still a broken process with uninteresting hooks ... that "Like You" was Daddy Yankee's second best performing single in the United States in 2005 behind "Gasolina"?" a recent example, and people who are more interested in winning the WikiCup and not really checking the hooks correctly.

I gave up on it after I discovered that there were hidden rules that only applied to certain types of articles. DYK is a waste of space.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sat Mar 30, 2013 12:31 am

Malleus wrote:I gave up on it after I discovered that there were hidden rules that only applied to certain types of articles. DYK is a waste of space.

Once again: stop bitching, and prove it.

Malleus · Unread post by **Malleus** » Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:17 am

EricBarbour wrote:
Malleus wrote:I gave up on it after I discovered that there were hidden rules that only applied to certain types of articles. DYK is a waste of space.
Once again: stop bitching, and prove it.

You really are a complete arse.

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Sat Mar 30, 2013 7:36 am

Malleus wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
Malleus wrote:I gave up on it after I discovered that there were hidden rules that only applied to certain types of articles. DYK is a waste of space.
Once again: stop bitching, and prove it.
You really are a complete arse.

It would be disturbing if he were an incomplete arse.

Maybe you could do a blog post on this subject?

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:14 am

The Joy wrote:
Malleus wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
Malleus wrote:I gave up on it after I discovered that there were hidden rules that only applied to certain types of articles. DYK is a waste of space.
Once again: stop bitching, and prove it.
You really are a complete arse.
It would be disturbing if he were an incomplete arse.

Maybe you could do a blog post on this subject?

I'm an incomplete ass. I had an appendectomy. Parts of me are missing...

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sat Mar 30, 2013 3:37 pm

Vigilant wrote:
The Joy wrote:
Malleus wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
Malleus wrote:I gave up on it after I discovered that there were hidden rules that only applied to certain types of articles. DYK is a waste of space.
Once again: stop bitching, and prove it.
You really are a complete arse.
It would be disturbing if he were an incomplete arse.

Maybe you could do a blog post on this subject?
I'm an incomplete ass. I had an appendectomy. Parts of me are missing...

Ah, the old dispute about "the container for the thing contained."

Jaranda · Unread post by **Jaranda** » Tue Apr 23, 2013 1:14 pm

From today's DYK...

... that Gene Hobbs, a regular contributor to Wikipedia's scuba articles, was named the 2010 Divers Alert Network/Rolex Diver of the year?

They even link his contributions in the hook....

Volunteer Marek · Unread post by **Volunteer Marek** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 4:41 pm

Jaranda wrote:From today's DYK...
... that Gene Hobbs, a regular contributor to Wikipedia's scuba articles, was named the 2010 Divers Alert Network/Rolex Diver of the year?
They even link his contributions in the hook....

Didn't they just try to torpedo the nomination for the "Wikipedia controversies" article on the basis that it was self-referential?

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 4:52 pm

Hex wrote:In the nine years since they began appearing, I can probably count the number of times I've clicked on a "DYK" on the fingers of one hand. They appear to exist mainly for the purpose of providing a social-climbing bureaucracy game within Wikipedia so that people can give themselves "awards" on their user pages.

BING!-BING!-BING!-BING!-BING!-BING!-BING!

WINNAR!

With the exception of the PR people and their lackeys, who have figured out that ad space is ad space and millions of eyes a day do indeed have value to government entities seeking to increase their "brand exposure" as a tourist destination, let's say...

RfB

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:32 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Hex wrote:In the nine years since they began appearing, I can probably count the number of times I've clicked on a "DYK" on the fingers of one hand. They appear to exist mainly for the purpose of providing a social-climbing bureaucracy game within Wikipedia so that people can give themselves "awards" on their user pages.
BING!-BING!-BING!-BING!-BING!-BING!-BING!

WINNAR!

With the exception of the PR people and their lackeys, who have figured out that ad space is ad space and millions of eyes a day do indeed have value to government entities seeking to increase their "brand exposure" as a tourist destination, let's say...

RfB

Which makes it all the more delicious to mess with Prioryman/Bamkin/etc
They have a direct financial incentive to continue with the Gibraltar stuff while I'm in it for the lulz.

It must be so frustrating to lose so often.

The Devil's Advocate · Unread post by **The Devil's Advocate** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:54 pm

Hex wrote:In the nine years since they began appearing, I can probably count the number of times I've clicked on a "DYK" on the fingers of one hand. They appear to exist mainly for the purpose of providing a social-climbing bureaucracy game within Wikipedia so that people can give themselves "awards" on their user pages.

I don't know if you can judge by how often someone who edits Wikipedia does it. The main page gets 9 million views a day and page view statistics for DYK entries do often show a pick-up when it appears. Some are duds, sure, but quite a few are not. You have to consider that of those who look at the main page only a portion will read over the DYK section and of them only a portion will go on to look at the actual article.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:27 pm

The Devil's Advocate wrote:I don't know if you can judge by how often someone who edits Wikipedia does it.

It's true - how many regulars uninvolved with front page processes ever look at the front page anyway? I'm not a good person to comment on it. But I do think there's a certain element of gaming/back-patting to the DYK process.

Ming · Unread post by **Ming** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:51 pm

Maybe so. There's a couple of interlocking issues going on at DYK, one of which is the need to review submissions, which is why we now have the "review one to submit one" rule. But the bigger issue is that there needs to be some sort of "is this actually interesting" test applied. I've put in a bunch of DYKs, and gotten two or three on the 5,000 views list, but I only bother to put one in if I can find a good hook for it. I have to think that the deep incuriosity of the average person means that they are easily uninterested on the one hand, but on the other, the fannishness which powers article creation means a lot of dull trivia is held "interesting".

Kiefer.Wolfowitz · Unread post by **Kiefer.Wolfowitz** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:33 pm

Malleus wrote: DYK has been a joke for years now, but nobody seems to care.

An instructive and black-comic episode:

I blocked this hook

Did you know ... that Christina Aguilera sings about how she was born to sing on her song "Sing for Me"?

which came from a DYK-nominated article that was also nominated for Good-Article status.

The DYK talk-page supported my blocking of the article, because the article "Sing for Me" by Christina Aguilera was not written in standard-written English.

The author, part of the Rihanna mutual-admiration society, claimed that he had reviewed dozens of GAs and had written 45 GA articles.

Always passive aggressive, Demiurge1000 appeared fantastically as Don Adriano de Armado, again with an inexplicable emotional involvement with a young Moth.

The episode is instructive, because standards were upheld, despite kilobytes of whining from an editor who has 45 GAs, apparently given by the other members of the Rihanna project, despite his not being able to write English.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz · Unread post by **Kiefer.Wolfowitz** » Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:35 pm

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:
Malleus wrote: DYK has been a joke for years now, but nobody seems to care.

An instructive and black-comic episode:

I blocked this hook

Did you know ... that Christina Aguilera sings about how she was born to sing on her song "Sing for Me"?

which came from a DYK-nominated article that was also nominated for Good-Article status.

The DYK talk-page supported my blocking of the article, because the article "Sing for Me" by Christina Aguilera was not written in standard-written English.

The author, part of the Rihanna mutual-admiration society, claimed that he had reviewed dozens of GAs and had written 45 GA articles.

Always passive aggressive, Demiurge1000 appeared fantastically as Don Adriano de Armado, again with an inexplicable emotional involvement with a young Moth.

The episode is instructive, because standards were upheld. I failed the nomination for GA because it was not ready for DYK. Soon afterword, another pop-song buddy removed the failure. The notice of the DYK failure was also removed from the article's talk page, today. I've received complaints on my talk page.

The Devil's Advocate · Unread post by **The Devil's Advocate** » Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:09 am

Hex wrote:It's true - how many regulars uninvolved with front page processes ever look at the front page anyway? I'm not a good person to comment on it. But I do think there's a certain element of gaming/back-patting to the DYK process.

That is part of the incentive. From a community perspective, the DYK process creates an incentive for basic content work. It allows people to feel as if their work does not go unrecognized, since they aren't generally getting any financial compensation for it. Plus, there is some feeling of personal accomplishment involved in seeing one's work displayed on the front page of one of the most trafficked sites on the Internet. For readers, the process serves as a way to give them little morsels of interesting information and invite them to learn more about something they may not have known about before seeing it on the main page. Obviously, as the main page of Wikipedia is prime online real estate it will also be a magnet for promotional activities and trolling.

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:01 am

When did they put this on the main page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... mprovement

I thought the point of DYK was to improve the DYK articles? Isn't this redundant?

Scott5114 · Unread post by **Scott5114** » Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:34 am

The Joy wrote:When did they put this on the main page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... mprovement

I thought the point of DYK was to improve the DYK articles? Isn't this redundant?

As I understand it, it's meant to draw attention to articles that need improvement that don't meet DYK standards (i.e. older articles and ones which have not had a recent arbitrary-percentage expansion). It's supposed to be good for pretty much any article that is under GA status.

DYK has never been very effective when it comes to article improvements. I've had a few DYKs on the main page here and there and never saw the same sort of activity spike as I saw from TFA. (Of course, TFA is more effective as a vandalism promoter, but I digress...) I imagine TAFI will be similarly ineffective.

The Devil's Advocate · Unread post by **The Devil's Advocate** » Fri Apr 26, 2013 4:26 am

Scott5114 wrote:As I understand it, it's meant to draw attention to articles that need improvement that don't meet DYK standards (i.e. older articles and ones which have not had a recent arbitrary-percentage expansion). It's supposed to be good for pretty much any article that is under GA status.

DYK has never been very effective when it comes to article improvements. I've had a few DYKs on the main page here and there and never saw the same sort of activity spike as I saw from TFA. (Of course, TFA is more effective as a vandalism promoter, but I digress...) I imagine TAFI will be similarly ineffective.

Well, TFA is more prominent than DYK. I would say that DYK is not very good at promoting article improvement, but it serves other functions. Articles for improvement probably will show some measure of success, though less likely because of any main page listing and more likely because of transclusions to various areas frequented by regulars.

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Fri Jun 14, 2013 2:32 am

... that after the famine in North Korea, a potato revolution (potato mound pictured) began?

Potato production in North Korea (T-H-L)

No reference to the below music?

Wer900 · Unread post by **Wer900** » Fri Jun 14, 2013 2:42 am

I have done several DYKs of astronomy articles with hooks that I try to make interesting. Amazing how much of DYK is either pop culture or niche US history.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Sat Jun 15, 2013 1:09 am

Wer900 wrote:I have done several DYKs of astronomy articles with hooks that I try to make interesting. Amazing how much of DYK is either pop culture or niche US history.

Given the completely baffling (read: idiotic) rule that only new articles are allowed, I'm hardly surprised.

Scott5114 · Unread post by **Scott5114** » Sat Jun 15, 2013 5:07 am

Hex wrote:
Wer900 wrote:I have done several DYKs of astronomy articles with hooks that I try to make interesting. Amazing how much of DYK is either pop culture or niche US history.
Given the completely baffling (read: idiotic) rule that only new articles are allowed, I'm hardly surprised.

I think the intention is that DYK is supposed to give new, underdeveloped articles a place on the front page, where they will draw attention and possibly be expanded.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Sat Jun 15, 2013 5:18 am

Scott5114 wrote:
Hex wrote:
Wer900 wrote:I have done several DYKs of astronomy articles with hooks that I try to make interesting. Amazing how much of DYK is either pop culture or niche US history.
Given the completely baffling (read: idiotic) rule that only new articles are allowed, I'm hardly surprised.
I think the intention is that DYK is supposed to give new, underdeveloped articles a place on the front page, where they will draw attention and possibly be expanded.

That used to be the intention. These days, the intention is to enable established editors to get their stuff on the main page, which after all gets over ten million views a day.

Wer900 · Unread post by **Wer900** » Sat Jun 15, 2013 5:19 am

Scott5114 wrote:
Hex wrote:
Wer900 wrote:I have done several DYKs of astronomy articles with hooks that I try to make interesting. Amazing how much of DYK is either pop culture or niche US history.
Given the completely baffling (read: idiotic) rule that only new articles are allowed, I'm hardly surprised.
I think the intention is that DYK is supposed to give new, underdeveloped articles a place on the front page, where they will draw attention and possibly be expanded.

That's true. Hex, what I'm more angry at is that we have no expert engagement to speak of, and have an angry retinue of cabals who are merely there for the intrigue and power-plays. We need to start a revolution of some sort on Wikipedia for institutionalized, representative governance. Scott is spot-on though; DYKs are supposed to allow new articles to have a chance at being seen. It needs a better review process to select for better ones.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Sat Jun 15, 2013 2:37 pm

Scott5114 wrote: I think the intention is that DYK is supposed to give new, underdeveloped articles a place on the front page, where they will draw attention and possibly be expanded.

Are the people most likely to expand an article they've never seen before likely to be reading the front page? I really doubt it. I'd also be willing to bet that a good sampling of articles that have appeared there would show that the vast majority have received very little or even no improvement as a result. If you look at the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement (T-H-L), that initiative, which was explicit in its intent to improve articles via front page exposure, was a failure. Why would DYK, which is pitched purely as a diversion for the curious, be any different, let alone better?

HRIP7 wrote:That used to be the intention. These days, the intention is to enable established editors to get their stuff on the main page, which after all gets over ten million views a day.

It's also an invaluable source of those little doodads you can put on your user page. And when you've got some of those, you can glue them together to make even bigger doodads to pat yourself on the back with. See if you can read the bottom of that page without gagging a little.

enwikibadscience · Unread post by **enwikibadscience** » Thu Oct 24, 2013 10:07 pm

... that the North and South State Street Historic Districts (pictured) in Belvidere, Illinois were intended to form one large historic district, but had to be split?"

A user, Ed raises this as one of the potntially most boring.

Duane · Unread post by **Duane** » Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:26 am

that although Lady Gaga tweeted that Adam Lambert was "perfect" to cover her song "Applause" in his Glee debut episode "A Katy or a Gaga (T-H-L)" "cause he's glammer", what he sang was "Marry the Night"?

If someone told me about this "interesting fact", my response would be "who gives a crap?" This only interests a specific audience and no way deserves to be on the main page of a site that's supposed to be worldwide.

enwikibadscience · Unread post by **enwikibadscience** » Sat Nov 16, 2013 6:56 am

Duane wrote:
that although Lady Gaga tweeted that Adam Lambert was "perfect" to cover her song "Applause" in his Glee debut episode "A Katy or a Gaga (T-H-L)" "cause he's glammer", what he sang was "Marry the Night"?
If someone told me about this "interesting fact", my response would be "who gives a crap?" This only interests a specific audience and no way deserves to be on the main page of a site that's supposed to be worldwide.

One thing about the science DYKs. The editors writing and promoting them are so brain dead, the science is made up, and the comprehension level from the writer and promoter is so low, that they often miss the most interesting fact about the organism or the science.

The Joy · Unread post by **The Joy** » Sat Nov 16, 2013 7:18 am

enwikibadscience wrote:
Duane wrote:
that although Lady Gaga tweeted that Adam Lambert was "perfect" to cover her song "Applause" in his Glee debut episode "A Katy or a Gaga (T-H-L)" "cause he's glammer", what he sang was "Marry the Night"?
If someone told me about this "interesting fact", my response would be "who gives a crap?" This only interests a specific audience and no way deserves to be on the main page of a site that's supposed to be worldwide.
One thing about the science DYKs. The editors writing and promoting them are so brain dead, the science is made up, and the comprehension level from the writer and promoter is so low, that they often miss the most interesting fact about the organism or the science.

I just saw this DYK:

... that after an atomic element has been isolated, it gets a trivial name?

Trivial name (T-H-L)

The painting of a naked Greek god scared me to death at first. I have a pop-up feature on my preferences that shows a snip of the article if you hover over the link. I had to do a double take on ol' Mercury. It looked like a photo of an angry, naked man. I thought Major Bonkers (T-C-L) had left it there.

enwikibadscience · Unread post by **enwikibadscience** » Sat Nov 16, 2013 8:03 am

The Joy wrote:
enwikibadscience wrote:
Duane wrote:
that although Lady Gaga tweeted that Adam Lambert was "perfect" to cover her song "Applause" in his Glee debut episode "A Katy or a Gaga (T-H-L)" "cause he's glammer", what he sang was "Marry the Night"?
If someone told me about this "interesting fact", my response would be "who gives a crap?" This only interests a specific audience and no way deserves to be on the main page of a site that's supposed to be worldwide.
One thing about the science DYKs. The editors writing and promoting them are so brain dead, the science is made up, and the comprehension level from the writer and promoter is so low, that they often miss the most interesting fact about the organism or the science.
I just saw this DYK:

... that after an atomic element has been isolated, it gets a trivial name?
Trivial name (T-H-L)

The painting of a naked Greek god scared me to death at first. I have a pop-up feature on my preferences that shows a snip of the article if you hover over the link. I had to do a double take on ol' Mercury. It looked like a photo of an angry, naked man. I thought Major Bonkers (T-C-L) had left it there.

Well, that's a confusing, contradictory, badly written piece of junk; and I can't find the hook in the source, although I see it contradicted in the source.

Great find; I will use it on my blog.