Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Removed

Helpful, but expand?

This page is helpful, but can it be somehow expanded to include the faulty hooks that ran nonetheless on the mainpage? Those include last week's stab wound (the hook is incorrect and the hook text is nowhere in the article, it was an uncited and faulty hook), and Maroon Creek Bridge (see the talk page, the factual error in the article has still not been corrected, the source says the bridge is a "relic", nothing whatsoever about "only significant", which is made up, since there are plenty of other remnants of the rail there). Can we also have a record of faulty hooks or plagiarism that were not removed but should have been? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed

Per the above, how about a sister page, Wikipedia:Did you know/Mainpage disputed? With three in one week that I'm aware of, I suggest that a page listing faulty hooks that ran is needed:

Since DYK has no equivalent of FAR or GAR, we should have a means of tracking the promotion of faulty hooks to the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the page, feel free to expand or change. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages and project pages FAR and GAR have the purpose of improving Wikipedia in the future by removing the "featured" and "good" designations from articles that no longer qualify for these distinctions (or perhaps were erroneously designated). In contrast, the new DYK mainpage disputed page appears to serve no purpose other than to provide a permanent record of the fact that mistakes and disputes have occurred in the past -- and finding fault with the volunteer contributors who have made mistakes. It does not appear to be in any way related to content development or other tasks related to the building an encyclopedia, and in fact has a large potential to discourage contributors by showing how people who dare to make mistakes can expect to be treated. --Orlady (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, but have a different point of view vis-a-vis accountability. Other processes that put content on the mainpage have it; DYK will improve with it. If a reviewer or nominator commits the same gaffes over and over at FAC, there is delegate intervention (for example, if a reviewer consistently opposes for reasons that have nothing to do with WP:WIAFA, that oppose can be discounted; if a reviewer consistently supports articles that are later found to have deficiencies their subsequent supports can be scrutinized more carefully, if a nominator consistently brings ill-prepared articles that can be dealt with; and so on. As evidenced by the Billy Hathorn (and multiple other serial plagiarizers who have appeared at DYK), problems continue at DYK for much too long before they are uncovered. If you have (and you do) a reviewer at DYK who is consistently putting faulty hooks on the mainpage, how can DYK improve without record keeping, since there is no delegate to intervene? Until/unless DYK has record keeping and accountability, there's no way to stop the recurring problems. The archives that have been set up are helping to stem the tide of problems, but there is no record of those that are still getting through. And ... we all make mistakes, but those who "make mistakes" at DYK are able to make the same mistake over and over for much longer in ways that affect the mainpage and hundreds of articles (multiple plagiarizers in the DYK Hall of Fame). Without records, by what process are we going to be able to discourage these "volunteers" who repeatedly make the same mistakes over and over to find other ways-- that don't affect the integrity of the mainpage-- to contribute to Wikipedia? The idea of a directorate for DYK hasn't taken hold, and even if it did, the current DYK "leaders" are drinking the koolaid and contributing to the problem; I don't see how DYK can overcome these issues without some system of accountability or responsibiity, which doesn't seem likely to happen via a directorate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Volume of DYKs

Would it be helpful to include here the number of DYKs that are (a) submitted and (b) posted on the main page? Also, it is not clear whether all the DYKs are checked or not, or whether those listed here are from a sample of an unknown number that were checked (with another unknown number not checked)? Carcharoth (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In general it would be helpful if more statistics about DYK were available, though I'm not sure this is the best place for them. I don't check all DYKs: some are based on sources not available to me (foreign-language, offline, etc), and at times I simply don't have the time to check. I don't know who else may be checking, but I seem to be the only one currently adding to this page. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussion

Noting here that I've mentioned this page in this discussion: User talk:Moonriddengirl#Studies on variance in paraphrasing standards. As Nikkimaria notes above, she is the one mostly adding to this page, so I'm not so sure this archive is a good example of the sort of thing I'm looking for. I'm really looking for an archive built up over months where the standards applied by a range of different editors can be considered for variance (there will always be some variance, but I would hope any glaring inconsistencies would be noticed). Carcharoth (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing exists, because the only person doing this work is Nikkimaria, sometimes Orlady. The only conclusion I can draw from this page's stats is that, as long as Nikkimaria takes the time to check, she finds the problems are still there, pretty much one per day, and most DYK reviewers don't even check. But then, neither do most New Page Patrollers ... it's not only a DYK problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good summary, and one I'd agree with, with the caveat that not all the examples listed here are ones that were accepted at the time (or even now). Some provoked arguments and disagreements. It would be helpful if those DYK submissions where there was extended disagreements were flagged up (examples of how to handle or not handle disagreements are useful). Some people don't have the confidence in their own writing to disagree when someone raises close paraphrasing concerns, others do. From what I've seen, sometimes that confidence is misplaced, sometimes it isn't and the misplaced confidence is that of the reviewer.

The conclusion I'm coming to (this is more broadly about those that work at CCI, not here) is that those who raise close paraphrasing concerns should have the confidence in their own writing to be able to both admit to and correct examples of borderline close paraphrasing in their own writing, and be able to respond to claims about their own writing, and do so gracefully and with clear explanations. That would point to an ability beyond just identifying and correcting problems, but being able to explain the underlying problem and show where to go from there. That ability to explain problems and not just identify them is rare, but is what is needed. I'm guessing New Page Patrollers may not be great at that either. BTW, are you aware that the WMF is rolling out a New Pages triage system somewhere? Have a look at Wikipedia:New Page Triage and its talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bad hooks that made it to main page

How about a place to remember bad hooks that made it to the main page? Then sat there forever after being reported as errors until someone outside of the DYK community took care of it?

People are forbidden to post about bad hooks on the main page anywhere in DYK, and then the main page errors are just ignored. How about the editors who put them there take some responsibility for fixing them?

You could just have a bot fill a notice on the main DYK page every time that section opens on the main page errors reports. You could also have editors with minimal background in the sciences read science hooks for errors. Or have editors read their own articles, and, if the article had linked both geological era and epoch, it would have been caught.

--2600:380:B11D:F3AD:1B8A:4BC4:8D90:5E81 (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, hooks that make it to the main page but are removed can be listed here, while those that complete their run can be listed at Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Mainpage_disputed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was changed with ten minutes to go. The editor isn't watching or fixing the article. It was ignored in the error reports; this community doesn't even wants errors reported here, strictly forbidding it; I had to get an uninvolved editor to fix it because correcting the article did nothing. Everyone here seems too busy putting more on the main page. There does not seem to be any science review aspect of this process. And it sadly does appear as if no one cares that thousands of people were misinformed. --2600:380:B11D:F3AD:1B8A:4BC4:8D90:5E81 (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecate this: what is the point of this page?

Anyone? Things get listed here, but nothing, absolutely nothing is done about them, their trends, the recurring issues etc. This is just another arcane and bureaucratic aspect of an already overloaded process. Suggest this is deprecated unless someone can provide suitable evidence for its purpose. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66, Gatoclass, Yoninah, and Fram: comments here please, this page seems to be utterly unhelpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Every now and then something gets pulled and posted here. Why? Yoninah (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's ping Nikkimaria, who I believe founded it, to get the reasoning behind its existence. I'm perfectly willing to continue posting to it if it remains potentially useful. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but the point is that if no-one is currently aware of any use, whatever Nikkimaria says is somewhat irrelevant. None of the removed hook stats are published to anyone, no-one gets told that X% of the pulled hooks are because of "Reason Y". This is just another DYK waste of time. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was recently discussed here, where I explained the rationale behind the original page creation. At the moment, the page demonstrates rough rate of removal, but I agree it doesn't provide much detail (though that could be added if wanted). Would it be more helpful to remove the page entirely (and thus have no tracking of removals at all), or to actually try to report stats or do something about trends, recurring issues, etc? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It provides no information at all that can realistically be reported or actioned. It needs to be removed, just one tiny bit of the bureaucracy surrounding the project can be excised. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, what we have here is The Rambling Man being like that little kid who pointed out that the emperor had no clothes. And we're trying to come up with an answer. Manually archived: 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, and 2011, Category:Removed Did you know hooks. So, 6 years of collecting this list with nothing being done with it. The fact of the matter is, not everybody bothers to post something they've removed, which makes the information flawed even if it was being used. — Maile (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This page is currently a record of what has been pulled, why, who did the pulling and it is potentially also a record of repeat offenders who are supplying substandard articles and hooks or doing substandard reviews. In fact, for some time I have been considering turning it into a table with more useful additional fields so that we can better keep track of which contributors need closer monitoring. I haven't done that for a variety of reasons, amongst which are indecision about how much to track, the possibility of other approaches, and the fact that I have other priorities right now. I still think it is a useful record (I personally refer back to it from time to time to remind myself of past cases or to check the current rate of removal), and adding a removed hook here is a minor task that adds only a few additional seconds to the overall process of removing a hook that can hardly be described as onerous. Gatoclass (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's currently a task which is yet another thing that is expected to be done (and complaints are hurled if not) when pulling sub-standard hooks. The information is incomplete and has never been used for any constructive purpose whatsoever. Of course, using it to track repeat offenders is borderline polemic. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed from your original post that you think they should be tracked. Arguments have been repeatedly made that we don't take action against repeat offenders, the first step in doing so is surely to identify them. I have personally found the list useful. And again, while it may be "yet another thing" to be done, it's a pretty small thing. You have to reopen a nomination when you pull a hook in any case, it's a small step from there to copy the page name and post it here. Gatoclass (talk) 10:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My original post questioned the utility of this subpage. You can't list repeat offenders in a polemic fashion. If you want to track these people (and no-one does) do it off-wiki. Provide the evidence as required. You don't "have to re-open a nomination" which has been pulled, by the way, you just pull the hook. Especially if it's on the main page. No-one is forced to follow the arcane rules of DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man, I am not proposing to "list repeat offenders in a polemical fashion". The idea is that the list would simply be a table, with column headers entitled, for example, "Nominator" and "Reviewer" for recording the associated user names - nothing "polemical" about it. With regard to the other issue, you are supposed to re-open the nomination if you pull a hook, per the procedure listed at How to remove a hook from the prep areas or queue. Gatoclass (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to continually ping me, I have around 9000 pages on watchlist, including this one. Listing removed hooks with the transgressing individuals is polemic, whether you like it or not, so probably not a good idea. If the whole thing boiled down to the name of the article pulled and just the reason why, and the project reviewed it every couple of months to take action, I'd be in favour of keeping it. So far, absolutely nothing at all like that. And as for what you're "supposed" to do, that's simply nonsense, if someone (e.g. a concerned admin) thinks they need to pull a hook from prep or a queue, that's all they need to do. If the project wants more than that, they should get a bot to work on it, after all it happens frequently enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Historical interest

I've now marked this page as deprecated and for retention only as part of historical interest. Too many hooks haven't been reported, there has been no evidence that this page serves any purpose, and nothing is to be gained by pretending it's in use. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]