Wikipedia talk:DYK

Zobacz też:

This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed.

My DYK nominations

User:Keeper76 made a post here a while ago not to accept nominations from me, User:RyRy5. He has said here that he is let okay with it going through DYK nominations now in fact it is checked carefully and shown to be legitimate. Comments? -- RyRy5 (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That second diff by Keeper involves my name, so putting my two cents in regarding the article I believe he is going to be submitting. I did give it a look for copyvio and didn't find anything, but I didn't delve too deeply and cannot be held responsible if a copyvio does exist in RyRy5's submissions. Useight (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Who uses the archives?

At User talk:The Duke of Waltham#DYK bot we are discussing restructuring the Did you know archives. Restructuring doesn't matter unless someone uses the archives. So do you? Do you use the archives for any purpose other than to look up your own hook, which benefits only those who have contributed hooks? How often have you looked? Do the archives exist only to provide the illusion of permanence for a six-hour phenomenon? If so then maybe we need archives to motivate new hooks, but the form of the archives wouldn't matter. Art LaPella (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In the past, I've used the archives to find hooks for the DYK section of the Organized Labor Portal. But that really wasn't a big deal, so you don't need to take it into consideration, if you want to redesign the archives.--Carabinieri (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict, sorry for some redundancy, although I disagree with carabinieri's note about being a big deal or not) I've used them to look what the hook on some article was when I happened to see the dyk template on the talk page, since the hook itself is not included on the template. For this, it would probably have been better if the hook itself was included in the talk page template (but I don't know if changing that now would be smart, since I like consistency). More importantly, I redid the film portal a few years ago (it's been redone since), and used the archives on a few occasions to look up new (or old, depending on the viewpoint) hooks for the dyk section there, the archives made it very simple. And I know you're not planning to delete the old archives, so this point wouldn't really matter, but the archives existed before the talk page template, so the only way to know whether an article had been on dyk was through seeing the archive on 'what links here'.- Bobet 19:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have used the archives several times. Once I was compiling archives for the April Fool's Day Mainpage, so I looked for them in the DYK archives. I have looked through the archives to find hooks used by myself and others for portals. I used the archives to calculate the number of DYK articles generated per month for an article in The Signpost.

This archive should be arranged by some type of date order, with the date clearly defined in the link to the archive. Having a series of numbers is not very helpful because it's quite difficult to determine which number corresponds with which date. I gave some thought about how much information should be placed in an archive (if everything remains the same as today), and I felt that dates 1-15 in a month should be in one archive and dates 16+ should go in another. Another reasonable alternative would be a structure where the archive links to a year page, then a month page, then date page. Royalbroil 04:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea, and I personally would also like to see updates datestamped in the archive itself so that anyone browsing through can see exactly when an update was displayed.

I've used them to look what the hook on some article was when I happened to see the dyk template on the talk page, since the hook itself is not included on the template - Bobet.

Adding the hook to the article template was suggested not long ago, I think that would just make too much work for updaters but on reflection I guess we could add the function to the template and just make it entirely optional, so that, for example, article authors could add the hook themselves if they so chose. Gatoclass (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(to add on to Gato's last sentence)...or so a bot could add the hook to the template if a bot does the crediting. Royalbroil 12:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Gato's suggestion sounds good to me, since it doesn't make any extra work for anyone who doesn't choose to volunteer it. Olaf Davis | Talk 11:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Does this qualify?

I realise that when an article that had been around for a while can qualify to get into DYK if the article is expanded five fold. My concern is that there are many entries which are unsourced and probable single person's POV or CK. Most of the times there are details that are totally unencyclopedic. So the question is, if such entries are amended and cleaned up, do they still quality for DYK? In matter of fact the already existing details are removed and new infomations are added. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 08:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with that is it makes it much harder to judge whether a given article fits the criteria. While five-fold expansion is fairly unambiguous, 'five-fold expansion of encyclopedic content' requires the reviewing editor to carefully consider how much of the original content was worthy - and DYK is already time-consuming and backlog-prone as it is. Obviously in some cases, such as replacing blatant vandalism, we can do it anyway, but I think allowing it in general will create far more work than it's worth. Olaf Davis | Talk 11:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but unfortunate that this will mean that some interesting facts may never be made known as well as lack the encouragement with DYKs will mean that those entries will never be improved. :( Thanks anyways. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 11:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles too technical for DYK

Hi, I know you are all really busy here so sorry for taking up your time. Most of the articles I have been writing for Wikipedia are fairly technical and I was looking for some guidance on what is considered suitable. The last article I submitted for DYK was Composite image filters which I thought was just borderline acceptable (and you did use it). The (unfinished) article I am currently working on, for instance, is User:Spinningspark/Prototype filter which I would say is not suitable for DYK although I am sure I could contrive a semi-interesting hook if required. Would someone care to comment on whether I am drawing the line in about the right place? SpinningSpark 19:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is it not suitable? I see no problems with nominating it, so I think your drawing line is off. You need to add some text in the first sentence in the lead to describe what type of filter thing you are talking about (to describe what part of the universe you are talking about). You are talking about electronics filters. We can use fairly technical articles. If readers don't understand the concept, then they don't have to click on it. Royalbroil 19:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! From now on I'll submit them. You can always knock them out again if you don't like them. SpinningSpark 21:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Provided that you can come up with an interesting hook, of course. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 22:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

All-American update

We may need to do one to get rid of all the accumulating US hooks. Better to get rid of them all in one shot than have a preponderance of US hooks in update after update IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, now that I've counted the hooks up to and including June 8, the number of hooks is about even. So as long as we keep doing 50% US hooks we'll be okay. It just gives the impression there are lots of US hooks because the days prior to June 8 are all US, but on the 8th there are lots of non-US :) Gatoclass (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

While this is here, are we planning on running full sets of U.S. hooks on the Fourth of July? I ask because other such days have gotten treatment (or at least an attempt at it), the Buddhist day being the most recent that I can recall. Unless there's a dicussion, I foresee many complaining of the "bias" if the section does anything like this. (For the record, I'm British, and don't much mind one way or the other. I just thought it apropos to bring the point up here)GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 19:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

June 14th is Flag Day in the United States, so June 14 would be a good day to use more US hooks than usual.--Bedford ^Pray 19:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

At least from what I gather from the media, it seems to me that Independence Day is more widely celebrated in the U.S. than Flag Day, though? We should really only go for one of the two for full-on U.S. hooks. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as a patriotic U.S. holiday, Flag Day probably is #4 behind July 4th, Memorial Day, and Veterans Day. For example, all of the former three are Federal holidays; Flag Day is not. Jclemens (talk) 07:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Today is a patriotic day, but not nearly at the level of they other 3 federal holidays that Jclemens points out. Royalbroil 13:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Another example of US blinkers: Did you know "... that the presidential campaign of Chuck Baldwin began only two weeks before the 2008 Constitution Party Convention yet still edged the campaign of political veteran Alan Keyes in the delegate count?". Surely this should read "U.S. presidential campaign" - there are lots of presidents of lots of things outside the US. - Gobeirne (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

But do any of the non-US matter? *ducks*--Bedford ^Pray 02:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

 :) - Gobeirne (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Scientology

I noticed there have been a lot of posts in the DYK section on Scientology. Recently 'Battlefield Earth' was a featured article. Is Wikipedia’s homepage being used to educate the public about scientology? I thought DYK articles were supposed to be thoughtful and engaging. The fact that L Ron Hubbard wrote a score for a movie is neither. The scientology facts are not interesting at all, and seem to be reoccurring. The other facts presented are usually very intriguing. When there are so many facinating things about the world I don't know, why would wikipedia waste valuable educational space for garbage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.165.48.146 (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "garbage", but the reason that there have been DYKs about any topic, Scientology or otherwise, is that someone bothered to write those articles up. If you want topics that appeal to you posted on DYK, please start typing. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This happens a lot on different topics. There are almost always some topics that were under-represented at Wikipedia that a single editor will actively write a lot of articles about. This time is happens to be Scientology. I can name several other topics that were almost constantly on the main page in the past like University of Michigan football and Eurovision. Please get an account and start writing on topics that you think are needed. You can make the world a better place and educate all of us. Royalbroil 20:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Despite the name, the only real purpose of DYK it to highlight new articles or heavily updated stubs. There is no real requirement or expectation for DYK articles to be thoughful or engaging and it is quite common that a variety of people do not find a variety of topics engaging or thoughtful. I.E. whatever we say there are always going to be people who already knew the fact, or otherwise did not find it interesting. Therefore, the fact that you personally did not find something engaging or interesting is with all due respect, irrelevant and unimportant. Far more important is that the hook is supported by the article (with references!) and comprehensible. If you get involved with WP:DYK you are welcome to propose different hooks for a DYK article but I don't think there is much support to completely ignore DYK suggestions just because some users don't like the topic. Nil Einne (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with 199.71.174.100 (talk · contribs), Royalbroil (talk · contribs) and Nil Einne (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I strongly disagree with that statement. DYK hooks shouldn't just be random facts from new articles. They're supposed to "hook" people. They do need to be humorous, extraordinary, surprising, or whatever. Otherwise we might as well put some boring statistics on the main page. Although I don't think that the Scientology-related entries specifically have been boring, I do think that we should be stricter about hooks actually being interesting. People shouldn't be thinking "Yeah, so what?" when they read these facts.--Carabinieri (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

While I do think the hooks should try to highlight the unusual in the article, I also think that different people find different hooks interesting. I once nominated an article with the hook that a creek has 42 named tributaries, one of which is "Little Dog Run". I thought the stream name was very odd and funny, but someone else who looked at the hook for me commented on the large number of named tributaries for a fairly small creek. What I had put in to provide context for the funny / odd name was someone else's "hook". By the way, I think the Scientology articles have been fine. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Carabinieri is right that a lot of hooks are of the "yeah, so what" variety. However, we really don't get enough submissions to pick and choose between hooks. When we have an overabundance of them, that's when we can drop the less interesting hooks.

But there are also other issues to consider. Some articles have had a lot of work put into them, but they are on intrinsically ho-hum subjects or simply don't have an interesting fact to highlight. Should these articles miss out in favour of badly written stubs that just happen to have a better hook? At the end of the day, the DYK section does not exist just for the amusement of readers, it's there basically to showcase a selection of the best new articles being written for the project, and that's something we also need to bear in mind. Gatoclass (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Either you're missing missing the point or I strongly disagree with what your saying. A hook is ideally supposed to be interesting and draw in the reader. The article however doesn't have to be interesting, thoughtful or engaging, just an article which meets the requirements. Bear in mind the distinction here between the hook and the article. The OP apparently thinks the articles themselves are pointless and not DYK worthy. While he/she's welcome to his/her opinion, my point was that DYK was never intended to highlight 'interesting' (a completely subjective criteria) articles, simply new non-stub articles and heavily updated stubs. We should of course try to come up with the best hook possible, but different people find different things interesting so it's impossible to decide conclusively which is the best hook. It would be incredible bad practice to ignore DYK articles just because no one can come up with a hook one random reader finds interesting (or worse, because one random reader finds the article 'boring'). In other words, unless you can come up with a better hook, it is pointless IMHO saying "I DON'T LIKE IT' since it serves no real purpose except to tell us the opinion of one random person. Nil Einne (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, after saying you "strongly disagree" with me, you seem to have basically reiterated the point I myself was making. So I think you are the one who has missed the point. But thanks anyhow. Gatoclass (talk) 09:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I interpreted the OP as saying the hooks were uninteresting, not the articles themselves. If the OP believes they're boring to all readers (and some hooks are) they're welcome to explain why, but at the moment it does just sound like "I don't like it" to me - and of course DYK cannot and should not be trying to please everyone with every hook. If I'm wrong and the OP did mean the articles then Nil Einne is correct - DYK does not require articles to be any more 'interesting' than Wikipedia does, except for containing a suitable hook: they should be something we want to showcase, which means a well-written article rather than an interesting subject. Olaf Davis | Talk 08:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think what he's saying is that he doesn't like Scientology and it upsets him that Scientology is effectively getting "promoted" on the main page with a bunch of hooks on fairly trivial Scientology-related subjects. I must say I share his concerns to some degree. However, given that the L. Ron Hubbard article isn't exactly flattering, along with a number of other Scientology articles, I guess it isn't such a bad thing if people read these DYK articles and are then inspired to read some more about the movement. Probably better they do so here than at some promotional site. Gatoclass (talk) 09:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Due to the varied responses to this, I (the origional annonomous poster) have created an account by which to donate more useful information. I don't like Scientology, but that isn't why I began this thread. My dislike for Scientology caused me to notice whenever it (or entities associated with it) was brought up. Due to my observations I noticed a trend of Scientology information on the main page. DYK that a hummingbird weighs less than a penny? DYK that the first person cast as the tim man in the wizard of oz was not able to play the part due to poisoning he recieved from components of his costume? DYK that Beethoven continued to conduct music even after he was completely deaf? Those are off the top of my head. Far more interesting than 'L Ron Hubbard wrote music to go along with his movie'. If we have to write information that nearly everyone would consider to be uninteresting, let's make it about a neutral subject (ie DYK that most brooms come with handles?^{citation needed}). Wikipedia is a great opportunity to nourish and excite the minds of the public on the raw information of the universe. Let's not waste that opportunity. Anyway, I now have a face! InfiniteCenturion (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, thankyou very much for acquiring a "face", and welcome to Wikipedia! However, I must point out that your comments re the Scientology articles are misinformed in regards to Wiki policies. Valid topics for Wikipedia articles are basically anything that is notable, which is to say, anything that reliable sources have seen as worth writing about. Thus, because reliable sources have written about topics such as L. Ron Hubbard's book To The Stars, we can create an article on the topic here. Of course, treatment of the topic itself must conform to a neutral point of view, but we can't exclude articles on certain subjects just because some people don't like the subject. That would be censorship, and wikipedia is not censored. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Gato, I agree with you. The scientology articles themselves are no place for me to interject my opinion. I wouldn't do that, nor would I want to do that. If I did, it would only be fair for others to shed a negative opinion on things I found in high regard. My comment is not aimed at the articles themselves, which I think are written from a neutral point of view. My comments are merely pointing out the face time Scientology has gotten on Wikipeida's main page. If for instance, Jesus Christ were to get a 'hook' every week and get a featured article slot in the same time frame, there are some who would question if Wikipedia is gaining a religous slant. Or if Wikipedia's main page were to give interesting facts about John McCain and never mention Barak Obama, then it might be pointed out that there is a conservative biased. I wouldn't want people to get the impression that Wikipedia were so narrow or biased of an encyclopedia that it had to draw from the same series of articles twice a week. Wouldn't that be kind of like putting the same dress in a store window over and over? My opinion is that the dress is bland and boring. Regardless of my opinion, it's time to mothball it and try out something fresh. We're getting sick of the reruns.InfiniteCenturion (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This seems to come up a lot. It's not uncommon for DYK hooks to show up in clusters like that. By design, DYK hooks always point to very recently created articles, so apparently what happens is that sometimes an editor gets really enthusiastic about something and creates a bunch of interesting articles on some certain topic. Then for a few weeks there is a noticeable cluster of DYK hooks for that particular topic, whatever it is. (Often the topic in question is a particular nationality.) I wouldn't worry about it, if I were you. Who knows, next month DYK may be noticeably heavy on kitten articles. APL (talk) 06:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Article fivefold expansion

I have a quick question about an article we recently expanded and the fivefold expansion rules. Maressa Orzack started out at about 600 characters long, but 6000 bytes. We've now expanded it to about 6,000 characters, but only 12,000 bytes. Does this count as expansion, as the visible character count has increased dramatically and the article is now ten times larger? Many thanks for any advice you can offer, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 22:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Among the unwritten rules we might list somewhere, is the rule that fivefold expansion is measured by the same prose-only rule that applies to the 1500 character minimum. So I count 620 bytes to 7034 bytes, which is elevenfold expansion. Art LaPella (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that much? I have nommed the article. The hook is interesting and very heavily sourced. Many thanks for your help!Gazimoff ^Write_Read 10:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Guide to DYK

Because I'm a little annoyed by all the ineligible nominations we get, I've written a guide to DYK. You can find it in my sandbox. I was wondering what you guys think and whether we should link it somewhere asking new users to read it before nominating articles. And BTW, feel free to edit it, of course.--Carabinieri (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Having a guide to DYK is a good idea, though I think this one could use some more work. One particular thing I noticed about it that is just plain wrong is the statement that "inline citations aren't required". Actually, they are, very much required, and I and other reviewers have been at pains to emphasize this in the rules so that people stop submitting entries that are difficult or impossible to fact check. I certainly don't want to go back to the bad old days of having to click my way through half a dozen different refs looking for the cited fact, so this is one part of your guide at least that would need to be changed. Gatoclass (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, we already have 2 sets of rules at Wikipedia:Did you know and Template talk:Did you know#Instructions, and changes to one set of rules don't always get noticed because someone is reading the other set. We need to avoid having the guide multiply that problem from 2 sets of rules to 3. Instruction creep can also be bad, but I don't see how that problem is helped by systematically enforcing secret or hard-to-find rules.

Here's what I meant above by "unwritten rules", that would remain unwritten using this guide in its present form. The question marks show where even I'm not sure if that's what the real unwritten rule is.

• No redlinks.
• No forks.
• No ads.
• No items that have already appeared on the Main Page or been rejected for In The News (?).
• The citation should preferably (?) be in English, and with no paid registration required to read it.
• Articles nominated for deletion won't be used unless/until they survive the deletion process.
• Don't falsely assume that everyone worldwide knows what country or sport you're talking about.
• Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was, no matter whether you kept any of it and (?) no matter if it was up for deletion.

The following rules are written but often overlooked:

• Space after the ellipsis.
• In the Manual of Style paragraph, WP:DASH and MOS:NUM#Numbers as figures or words. Art LaPella (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There was also the recent Signpost dispatch aimed at introducing DYK to new editors. BuddingJournalist 03:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK stats

Reading over the debate about Scientology, I was motivated to check stats for recent DYK hooks that have received the prime top spot with picture. I do think that the "interesting" element of the hook is key and find it disappointing when one of my proposed hooks proves to be a "bomb." A great hook will draw 2,500 or more views, and a mediocre hook may draw fewer than 1,000 views. As it may be informative to see what types of hooks are working, here are the stats:Cbl62 (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Article	Image	DYK views	DYK hook
Pale-yellow Robin		1,500 (article) 5,500 (pic)	that the Pale-yellow Robin (pictured) uses the prickly Lawyer Vine as a nesting site and for nesting material?
McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink		1,600 (article) 4,000 (pic)	that McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink (pictured) is both an ice skating rink and the largest alfresco dining venue in Chicago?
Uri-On		6,800 (article) 4,500 (pic)	…that Uri-On (pictured), created by Michael Netzer in 1987, was the first Israeli superhero to be published in color?
Culver Randel House and Mill		3,800 (article) 7,600 (pic)	... that Culver Randel manufactured pianos at his mill in Florida, New York?
Eberswalde Hoard		7,200 (article) 8,300 (pic)	that the Eberswalde Hoard (pictured), a collection of 81 gold objects weighing 2.59 kilograms (5.7 lb), is an important find from the European Bronze Age?
Harris Theater (Chicago)		1,500 (article) 140 (pic)	that the Harris Theater (pictured) is the first new performing arts venue built in downtown Chicago, Illinois since 1929?
HNoMS Kjell		7,900 (article) 3,800 (pic)	that the Norwegian torpedo boat HNoMS Kjell (pictured) was known as "Terror of the smugglers" when she intercepted rum runners during Norway's prohibition?
Tourism in Egypt		5,200 (article) 2,400 (pic)	that the worst terrorist attack against tourists in Egypt was in November 1997, when gunmen killed 57 tourists and 4 Egyptians (location pictured)?
Neil Hamilton Fairley		8,000 (article) 5,000 (pic)	that the British Army changed its plans for operations in Greece during World War II on medical advice from Australian Brigadier Sir Neil Fairley (pictured)?
Polyphemos Painter		743 (article) 2,300 (pic)	that the Analatos Painter, Mesogeia Painter and Polyphemos Painter (work pictured) were early Greek vase painters of the Proto-Attic period, active between 700 and 650 BC?
Cozy Dog Drive In		5,900 (article) 3,800 (pic)	that the original hot dog on a stick to be served at Cozy Dog Drive-in was called a Crusty Cur?
Yazdegerd I		3,300 (article) 5,500 (pic)	that the 5th-century Sassanian Emperor of Iran Yazdegerd I (coin pictured) was given the epithets of Ramashtras ("the most quiet") as well as Al Khasha ("the harsh")?
John Sowden House		5,700 (article) 9,900 (pic)	that the Lloyd Wright-designed John Sowden House (pictured) is known as the "Jaws House" because its facade resembles the open mouth of a shark?
Moika Palace		4,500 (article) 3,000 (pic)	that the Moika Palace, a museum about the murder of Grigori Rasputin (pictured) by Prince Felix Yusupov, was also the scene of the homicide?
Delaware (chicken)		6,800 (article) 5,400 (pic)	that the Delaware breed of chicken (chick pictured) was once the favorite broiler on U.S. East Coast farms, but is now critically endangered?
Brunei pitis		2,500 (article) 7,200 (pic)	that the first coinage used in Brunei were Chinese coins (example pictured), which were referred to as the pitis?
Medieval Bulgarian Army		7,100 (article) 5,400 (pic)	that the core of the Medieval Bulgarian Army (pictured) was the heavy cavalry, which consisted of 12,000–30,000 heavily armed riders?
Catholic Church of St. Catherine		2,700 (article) 3,300 (pic)	that the Church of St. Catherine (pictured) in St. Petersburg was taken over by the Soviets, closed, ransacked and twice burned out, before being returned to the Catholic Church in 1992?
Christopher Smart		5,800 (article) 4,200 (pic)	that Christopher Smart (pictured) spent five years in a mental asylum and wrote his most important works, Jubilate Agno and A Song to David, during this time?
Crescent Honeyeater		1,000 (article) 5,300 (pic)	that the diet of the Crescent Honeyeater (pictured) changes from nectar and invertebrates to wholly insects during the breeding season?
Andreas Frederik Krieger		960 (article) 2,500 (pic)	that Andreas Frederik Krieger (pictured) was one of the most vocal critics of the morganatic marriage between Frederick VII of Denmark and Louise Rasmussen?
List of Registered Historic Places in Chicago		3,300 (article) 6,200 (pic)	that there are at least 296 historic places listed on the U.S. National Register in Chicago, including a German U-boat (pictured)?
Attack Squadron 46 (United States Navy)		9,200 (article) 6,500 (pic)	that John McCain was a member of the VA-46 Clansmen (insignia pictured) when he was wounded during the 1967 USS Forrestal fire off the coast of Vietnam?

Thanks for that very nicely put together presentation Cb, but you forgot to sign it :)

I must say though that I disagree with your conclusions. If your table indicates anything to me, it's that certain topics are of interest to readers, rather than certain hooks. For example, articles about war machines and war related topics always seem to score quite well - because, I guess, most computer users are youngish males with an interest in that sort of thing. Articles about US subjects tend to do better than other articles on the same subject, because lots of people with computers are Yanks. Articles on popular culture (like the comic book cover above) do well because popular culture is just that - popular.

At the other extreme, articles on less popular subjects can really bomb. My four hooks on Australian composers got an average of only about 250 hits, in spite of the fact that the hooks were in my opinion quite good - I mean, stuff like best Australian composer of the early 20th century is a pretty outstanding achievement. But only a couple of hundred people cared to know more. Whereas if I write a hook about a warship, it's guaranteed to get a minimum of about 4,000 hits, no matter how ho-hum the hook is. So I don't really think hooks are all that important, it's mainly the subject matter. I bet that recent article on the Pakistani model-actress got plenty of hits! Gatoclass (talk) 02:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sex and weaponry may sell even with mediocre hooks (I confess I checked out the article about the Pakistani model-actress when it was on the main page), but this very small sampling seems to show that other subjects can also sell with clever hooks. Hooks about an 18th Century poet, hot dog on a stick, an Israeli superhero, a breed of chicken, objects from the Bronze Age and a Lloyd Wright house all scored more than 5,000 hits.Cbl62 (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I certainly think an interesting hook helps :) But as you say, some subjects just seem to be more interesting in general. It's a combination of the two. Gatoclass (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I've just started to keep a record of viewing stats for my hooks, motivated by a similar curiosity over which topics are popular with readers and whether having a pic has a significant effect. My data sample suggests these conclusions...

• Sex and murders are popular (getting the words "most bizarre sex scene" into a hook generated nearly 17,000 views...)
• Politics isn't
• Wacky, off-the-wall hooks can be successful (William Edge, a long-dead British MP, got more views than might otherwise be expected because of his exploits with pigeons)
• My series of Brighton & Hove places of worship articles bounce along nicely but unspectacularly; lead pictures definitely helped the figures in two cases

I love seeing surprising, bizarre or daft hook facts and memorable "pub quiz"-style pieces of knowledge (the current hook about the cultivable area of the Seychelles is a good example. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 08:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

For more accuracy, you could also keep track of the time when the hooks were on the main page, since there are generally less views for hooks that are featured during night time in America (I don't have stats on that, but it sounds believable enough that I'll present it as fact and hope no one will notice). Also, the length of time between updates could be a factor, but that doesn't seem to have been an issue recently (since the updates get done so promptly, good job everyone involved). - Bobet 08:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the goal of DYK is to draw viewers to new articles, would it make sense to recognize hooks that have extraordinary success, e.g., Hassocks' Jacqueline Voltaire hook that drew 16,000 views? Would it also makes sense to create a sub-page where we keep track of hooks that have drawn the highest number of hooks? While DYK is not a competition, an ongoing recognition for extraordinary hooks would help motivate people to come up with eye-catching, interesting hooks. Cbl62 (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've thought of starting such a page myself, but it's a matter of finding the time, and I just don't think I can make time for any extra commitments around here ATM. Gatoclass (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a first draft of a possible monthly "best of DYK" template. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cbl62/sandbox3 If others volunteer to contribute to such an effort, I think it would be a good way to continue to promote the best new articles. Cbl62 (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I don't mind helping to update and maintain it when I get a spare few minutes. It could possibly be linked in with either the DYK contributors list or the page with DYK records and statistics, which for the life of me I can't find at the moment. I have a feeling that if accepted, the current candidate hook for Human-goat sexual intercourse may feature prominently in the template... Interesting observation from JayHenry below, as well; I agree that thought should always be given to providing interesting and relevant wikilinks elsewhere in the hook sentence. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have updated hooks up to and including 16 June 2008—at the current time, the last day on which stats are available at stats.grok.se. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In looking through the stats I've noticed that the bolded article isn't always what gets the most clicks. For example, on the day of Moika Palace, people who read the hook were more interested in Grigori Rasputin. While on a typical day a few thousand people look at Rasputin, on his day in the spotlight, 14,000 did which suggests a DYK bump of 12,000. If our goal is to draw readers into the encyclopedia then we should consider whether the other items in the hook are of interest as well. --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've never had an article have 5,000 hits during its DYK stay. Maybe this will help be get an idea of how to improve though. Wizardman 00:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm probably dragging up an old discussion here, but since DYKs are only on the main page for six hours (?), shouldn't they be put on at a time which is appropriate. I.e. An American subject should be on during the day or evening in America, an English subject on during the day or evening in England, etc. Some subjects at DYK may only have limited interest and be on at a time when they are likely to receive less traffic. Peanut4 (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that, in this age of globalization, it will work well. A lot of Americans live all over the world, and many non-Americans stay or live in the U.S., etc. Besides, even for people living in the same time zone, it is not that they all get up and sleep at the same time. Also, all-American updates, no matter what time of the day they get featured on main page, will draw complaints. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It's never going to be a perfect system, and I feel most DYKs will have some global interest - at the moment, most if not all do. But on a few occasions, I think it might be worth bearing in mind what the tag is mainly about and perhaps saving it for one or two updates' time. Peanut4 (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Goat sex

Currently at T:TDYK#June 19 we have the following nomination. I can't quite recall anything like this in my time watching the page, although I've not watched it nearly as closely as some.

• ... that in worship of the god Mendes Egyptian and Greek priests and priestesses would copulate with goats (pictured) of the opposite sex?

We should discuss this. The issue is not censorship, but rather sound editorial judgment and purview. First, is this befitting of a quality encyclopedia? Second, does the DYK project have the right to put this sort of material and image on the main page without seeking broader community input? There is precedent here as well: although Jenna Jameson is a featured article, it's been determined that this article would not be appropriate for the main page FA. Wikipedia is not censored, but this doesn't mean that it's therefore acceptable to put any topic whatsoever on the main page (as opposed to having the article on Wikipedia if someone seeks it out). I don't feel terribly strongly, but I think this is the sort of thing that should be discussed in calm and rational tones, so if there's a hysterical reaction we have something intelligent as a response. --JayHenry (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd never use that pic on the front page, but I would use the DYk. However, I would bury it by putting it third from the bottom.--Bedford ^Pray 00:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking purely at the article itself, it does not seem to be well-written or well-organized. Witness: The first subsection is a single sentence, and the third subsection consists of two bullet points. On those grounds alone, there's reason not to feature it on the Main Page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Images such as this probably should not be featured as part of DYK anwyay; this is our main page, despite our lack of censoring. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, My original nom hook did not contain that picture.[1] I am not sure who added it but I agree the picture should not be on the main page. (to EncycloPetey) The purpose of DYK is to get editors interested in the article so they expand it, is it not? So I urge you to include the hook as I originally posted it. - Icewedge (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. The stated purpose of DYK is that it "gives publicity to newly created or expanded Wikipedia articles". The Rules explicitly do not allow stubs, so clearly it is not to get people involved in expanding articles. That is what various Collaboration projects do. DYK features new articles, thereby promoting the creation of other new articles. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The DYK rules say nothing about quality however and the article is long enough (about 1.8K characters). Also, the rest of the sentence you quoted says "and to encourage other editors to contribute to and improve that article". -Icewedge (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem with the hook, but I'm not sure that using the picture would accomplish much other than baiting. If the article ever reaches FA, and is featured in the TFA section (which I don't really see happening, since Jenna Jameson is considered over the line for the Main Page), by all means use the image. Since we have many alternative hooks to use as the lead, let's just go with one of those. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 12:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've nixed the article, we don't need a badly referenced separate article on "goat sex" when we have a perfectly good article on bestiality already. Anything worthwhile in this particular article can be merged into that one. Gatoclass (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• I expanded the article and added Human-goat sexual intercourse back into the DYK hopper.[2] Bebestbe (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It's an improvement but I'd still be reluctant to feature this on the front page. I mean, what will the next article in the series be, sheep sex? Cow sex? Horse sex? Duck sex maybe? Gatoclass (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTCENSORED. I believe your rejection for this nomination is coming from the fact that this is a very fetish thought. But rules say it is good to go. --gppande «talk» 07:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

We already have a bestiality article. Why do we need separate articles on the different animals people choose to have sex with? That is my concern. I don't give a toss about a "goat sex" article one way or another but you have to realize that wikipedia already gets criticized for alleged lack of standards in some quarters, and I don't see why we should give the critics a free shot. Gatoclass (talk) 07:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gatoclass. I added the photo to the first DYK listing of the article, saw the trouble, felt bad about it, so I added more info to the article and reposted it to DYK. It does meet DYK requirements. DYK suggestions that meet DYK requirements usually are not removed (or lined out), even under controversial topics situations. I think what happens in such controversial topics situations is that the suggestion either is timely picked up by an admin for DYK and posted to the Main Page or it goes to expiring noms, where it still can be picked. Expired noms not picked up by an admin for DYK are removed in a group. WP:NOTCENSORED is met, the system is applied fairly to all posted suggestions, and everyone is happy (until they are not). Bebestbe (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK archive page

We've talked about datestamping the updates in the archive for a while now, but nobody's done anything so I've left some simple instructions at the top of the archive page for doing so. Also left a suggestion that the archive page should itself be archived every Friday (which makes a total of about 28 updates or 200 hooks per archive). Because there are no instructions, no-one ever seems to archive the page and I think the last archive I did had about 2,000 hooks in it! Gatoclass (talk) 07:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand is working on date stamping article creation requests. See this thread. Perhaps he/she can create a bot to datestamping the DYK updates (or just post a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests and someone else may do it). Bebestbe (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent additions page

Folks, this is gettin' ridiculous. I have had to add three missing updates to the archive page today alone - half a dozen at least in the last couple of days. What is so hard about remembering to update the previous set of hooks to recent additions at the same time you post the new update to the front page?

Just for the record, here's how I go about posting a new update:

1. Post the new update to T:DYK and purge the mainpage;
2. Reset the clock;
3. Open the T:DYK page history, open the edit prior to the one I just made;
4. Right click on the picture to open it in a new window. If it still has an mprotected tag and is protected, I remove the tag and unprotect. If it's a copy of an image from Commons, I just delete it;
5. Close the window and go back to the previous page, click "edit" and copy the hooks;
6. Post them to the "Recent Additions" page along with a timestamp;
7. Job done! Now all that's left is the notifications.

It's really very easy, only takes a minute to do the whole thing, so I just can't understand why people aren't doing it. If you make it part of your routine, you can't go wrong. I might have to post the above instructions somewhere to inform updaters who are not so familiar with the process. Gatoclass (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I had been following that routine around the clock for a while, as you'd know, but I got tired recently and had to take a break - which is still ongoing, leading to my recent sloppiness in archiving. But I am curious too, because it seems that some admins never bother to archive any update, and some of them even seemingly refuse to do the credits, and I am not talking about newbies. I mean, if they are too busy we will have to understand but they apparently have time to write articles and submit them to DYK!! I don't mean to sound harsh to anyone, but perhaps this might be a good opportunity for them to explain their reasons (slow connection, etc) or ask questions if they still don't understand the process. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I can quite understand your tiredness, I have started to feel quite burnt out with doing the updates over the last day or two myself, and I feel I need to step away from it for a while because it's becoming less a fun thing to do and more of a chore. As it happens, you only missed one archiving, and I've never seen you do that before. Bedford however has missed several, as I pointed out to him on his talk page recently, and someone unfamiliar with the process also missed one, but I really think we need to rewrite the rules or something to explain a bit better what to do because if people are only going to archive the occasional set of hooks we might as well just forget the whole thing. Gatoclass (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I said on my talkpage, people can't decide when the hooks are archived, so I've let others decide on that.--Bedford ^Pray 18:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought we decided to always add the hooks after they are done being featured. Thanks for the steps for promoting: they make more sense than the order that I had been using. I'll try to watch more for promoting the next updates. You guys were so efficient it hardly seemed worth it to check. If I looked five minutes late, it was usually done or in progress. Royalbroil 18:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Oldest co-operative

{{editprotected}} Please change the hook for Lothian, Borders & Angus Co-operative Society in Template:Did you know to:

• ... that Scotland's Lothian, Borders & Angus Co-operative Society was founded in 1839, five years before the Rochdale Pioneers?

Reason is that although older than Scotmid and Clydebank, I am not 100% convinced that the 1863 The Co-operative Group it didn't absorb any very old Scottish societies in the 20th century. (See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cooperatives#Main page.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Y Done PeterSymonds (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry for the garbled English in my request. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK poor fact checking issues -- does it matter when articles on main page are wrong?

Does it matter that the articles in DYK are often plagiarized and wrong? Today's list has a fact from Deux Balés National Park which maps the Black Volta River in far eastern Burkina Faso--it's not. The river on the map, in far eastern Burkina Faso is the Oti. The Black Volta is just west of center. I don't think that complaints about problems on the main page are welcomed. But DYK appears to be out of control. Do editors earn rewards for DYK contributions? There is not much time spent fact checking. Even Wikipedia could have been used to fact check this article, and see that it's wrong.

I think the rules could stand to be changed to include some fact checking and plagiarism checking time. --Blechnic (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Great idea! We could really use some extra hands, does this mean you're volunteering? Gatoclass (talk) 02:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

We need some kind of special programming for that.--Bedford ^Pray 02:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not volunteering. I had my head bitten off, got attacked by half a dozen editors the first time I pointed out that an article in DYK was plagiarized, and was blocked for a week. Now it appears that articles by Carol Spears that appear in DYK have been heavily plagiarized, but the ones I've reviewed have also been wrong. I've seen quite a few wrong and plagiarized DYK articles. Again, it's been made abundantly clear by how I was treated that knowing the articles on the main page are factually inaccurate or plagiarized is unwanted shoot-and-attack-the-messenger information. I suggest, though, that it disgraces Wikipedia. Thanks for moving this Bedford. It doesn't help that it's almos

t impossible to find where to point out a wrong fact in DYK. You don't even have to be an African geographer to have seen that west of the Black Volta is not in eastern Burkina Faso. --Blechnic (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've volunteered with this for a very long time. I've pointed out or fixed errors in very many articles and never had any problems like you describe. I'm sorry you had such a bad experience. Of course it matters if articles on Wikipedia are plagiarized, and it's very important that we get them fixed. The way DYK works is that articles are submitted at T:TDYK and sit there typically for five days. During this time editors review the articles and try to catch these errors. It's a huge amount of work and more help is always appreciated. If you notice a problem on an article at T:TDYK then please leave a comment below the article stating the problems. Articles that get flagged as problematic will not be added to the T:DYK template until the issues have been fixed (and if the issues are not fixed, they will not be placed on the main page at all). Of course it's very difficult to fact check everything in every article that comes through the system, which is why more help is always needed; the editors running DYK are human and sometimes miss things or make mistakes. --JayHenry (talk) 03:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well it's not merely difficult to fact check everything, it's just plain impossible. We are struggling mightily just to check the facts in the hooks alone, which probably amounts to between 50-100 facts per day, to check every fact in every article would mean literally thousands of facts and we would need a fulltime staff of dozens to do that, along with considerable resources. Ain't gonna happen.

However, as I indicated above, if Blechnic has found so many mistakes he is more than welcome to report them, either at main page errors or better still on the suggestions page prior to posting, where we are chronically in need of more people to process submissions. Gatoclass (talk) 03:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I write articles about tropical African agricultural pests, a rarified area on Wikipedia. I don't find, after reading so many plagiarized and inaccurate articles, that DYK is compelling. I usually go to the article after finding the DYK congrats tag on someone's talk page. However, do you think these unrelated articles are more important than some better coverage on African geology, soils, plants and their pathogens, rivers, and geography? Do you think it would be better for me to spend time fact-checking in an area I know nothing about, when I can run through 10 African plant stubs and at least add the information that it's a tree, a bush, a vine, in upper or lower tropical rainforest, a medicinal plant, used to make xylophones? And that I can quickly verify those facts with a glance at a book on my shelf, verify information not found on the web, or access private data bases to verify? Or would it be better for me to do a second rate job fact checking an unrelated pile of articles of varying importance outside of my area? This seems like a call against expertise: no matter what you know, have been trained and educated in, don't spend your time there, but randomly make sure that brand new articles on the front page are accurate?

Why not ask the projects to edit the articles before they go on the main page, give them 3 days after it has been selected to appear, to edit and correct and fact check the article. I'll embarrass them after that. You have almost no one writing about tropical African agricultural pests, don't ask the few editors who can do that to edit a church in New York, the Buddweiser Clydedales, and an industrial metal band and make Wikipedia far more American and limited world view than it already is. --Blechnic (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand your proposal. How exactly would the system work? [XXX] reviews the articles for DYK eligibility and selects them to appear on the main page. Then [XXX] would be responsible for finding active WikiProjects (bear in mind that the vast majority of projects are not highly active), notifying them of the article and asking them to vet the article over the course of the next three days. After that, [XXX] would promote the hooks which have been checked? -JayHenry (talk) 04:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to think that involving wikiprojects more closely might lead to better articles, but I'm thinking it might just make things a lot more unmanageable. For one thing, someone is going to have to inform a relevant wikiproject or two whenever an article in its area of interest is submitted. Then we have to hope that someone at that project actually cares enough to vet the article (they aren't doing it on the front page now, will it make any difference if the article is posted on their own wikiproject?). And then at some stage the time for improvement is up and that article enters the DYK pool for promotion. I mean, I can see this becoming a bit of a management nightmare.

Apart from which - let's face it - quite a few wikiprojects are just wp:battlegrounds with groups of wilfully ignorant partisans slugging it out over the fence. Is involving such groups likely to lead to better articles? I doubt it. So I'm not at all persuaded of the benefits of a proposal like this. Gatoclass (talk) 04:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

And come to think of it, User:AlexNewArtBot already sorts new articles for WikiProjects, and the active WikiProjects actually monitor the lists the bot creates and check and improve these articles. So there's already a five-day fact checking period and a system to notify editors with relevant expertise who are active. I think I agree that the issue is a lack of manpower and perhaps a lack of understanding from the community regarding what DYK is all about: giving publicity to newly created or expanded Wikipedia articles, as a way of thanking the editors who create new content and to encourage other editors to contribute to and improve that article and the encyclopedia. The articles are allowed to be a work in progress. (Of course it goes without saying that absolutely no edit should be plagiarized or a copyright violation.) --JayHenry (talk) 05:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

But that's exactly what is happening, your lead sentences, entire articles, your hooks, the references: wrong, plagiarized, plagiarized, wrong.

On Wikipedia the first thing that always crops up in response to a suggestion, usually faster than anyone can think about it, is why it can't be done, why changing a really crappy method--namely, plagiarizing other people's work and highlighting it on the front page--is wrong, why nothing in the known universe can ever change, ever be invented, ever be imagined to occur in a different way.

And, look, that's about the only constant in the human race through history: the nay sayers. Yet here we are on the internet, and I drove to work today, in a car that gets 40mpg.

Make it the responsibility of the nominator to get the article to a WP or other place for fact checking.

Or, as someone suggested, reward good articles, instead of new articles.

Or block articles from editors who've submitted prior articles with poor fact checking, because DYK is a contest. Or make a tag for their page, or correct the damn articles when someone points out they're wrong instead of attacking and blocking editors who point out they're plagiarized.

I haven't figured out what the prize is yet, but there is one for getting your article in DYK, because that is how a small subgroup of editors act: precisely as if there is a prize, and people are treating it just like that: rack up the points no matter what.

I can't for the life of me figure out how the editor thought that the Black Volta was in eastern Burkina Faso. The article he used as a source didn't say that. No Wikipedia maps say that. None of the articles he references said that. But it didn't matter, because this encyclopedia isn't accurate and doesn't strive for accuracy, just encouraging bad editors. Yet, there it was, a quick and dirty and fastly written article with just that little factoid brightly opening it, a major drainage basin in Africa changed, because crap, apparently "encourages editors to contribute to and improve that article and the encyclopedia."

Sorry, JayHenry, no encyclopedia was ever improved by getting facts in its articles wrong, and if these are the editors you want to encourage, I think DYK is worse off than I could have imagined. But that explains why I've yet to examine a single DYK article that was factually accurate or not plagiarized. --Blechnic (talk) 05:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

First article I checked on DYK right now, Beth Wambui Mugo, is plagiarized this web page. It's rampant. --Blechnic (talk) 06:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a stub ... way too short to go on the Main Page in any event. Daniel Case (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Um... you DID see that that source was already listed as a reference and cited multiple times in that article, right? A re-reading of WP:Plagiarism may be in order, especially the "without attributing that material to the original author" bit. Jclemens (talk) 06:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, did you see the quote marks in the article? They're not there, that's because it's plagiarized, which it is. If you use material verbatim from another source, you must use quote marks. --Blechnic (talk) 06:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I DEFY YOU to show one of my articles was plagiarized from the web. That's 135 and, except for maybe part of a paragraph in one or two that came from a public domain source like the NPS, none of mine are plagiarized.--Bedford ^Pray 06:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, shoot me dead, bitch I am, for pointing out the plagiarisms on DYK. Come on, get me blocked, harass me, challenge me, mock me, assault me. Oh, my god! I'm going to go look at your articles now! No, wait, I don't care to read any of yours. I've read a couple of dozen DYK articles. Every single one has contained rampant plagiarism. If that's the company you want to keep, who am I to defy your desires to hang out with your buddies? I did just read an article, the first one, that appears not to have been plagiarized, not only that, the author appears to have used his sources well, a little heavy on the hiking guides, but these are supported by other sources I found. The article needs more references, but even the unreferenced lines don't appear plagiarized, and, wow, imagine that, he didn't copy lines of text verbatim without quotation marks. Oh, wait, I already said he didn't plagiariaze. He or she. --Blechnic (talk) 06:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You really aren't going to help persuade anyone with wild exaggerations. I very much doubt you have found "rampant plagiarism" in "every single one" of the dozen DYK articles you have supposedly read. That sort of comment is only likely to damage your own credibility.

As I've said, anytime you find plagiarism problems on DYK, find an active DYK admin and they will deal with it. If you find a lot of it, you will quickly persuade us that we have a significant problem that needs addressing. But merely making unsubstantiated and dubious claims is not going to help your cause. Gatoclass (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I think if I read a couple of dozen articles on DYK and they all contain plagiarism, that's rampant plagiarism on DYK. And, look, when I was discussing it last night, I didn't have to even go to the archives or my watch list to find examples, I simply went to the main page, picked an article at random, and it was plagiarized. It should not have been that easy to support my accusations--but it was. You ought to worry more about the quality of stuff on the main page.

And, you know what, when I was attacked and blocked for a week for complaining about a DYK plagiarism, that kinda put a damper on reporting it. It also, I suspect, is an indicator of how complaints on DYK are handled: shoot the messenger dead, get rid of them from Wikipedia. --Blechnic (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(←) In response to: "Sorry, JayHenry, no encyclopedia was ever improved by getting facts in its articles wrong, and if these are the editors you want to encourage, I think DYK is worse off than I could have imagined." What on earth are you talking about? Where did I say anything where any possible interpretation of what I said by any remotely intelligent person could lead to the conclusion that you drew? I'm a volunteer here. I'm not in charge. Why would I want to volunteer with somebody like you who's going to distort the things I said? Yep, I'm going to go ahead and take a break from that. Honestly tell me Blechnic how I'm supposed to respond to that ridiculous insult? I've got more important things to do... so good luck. Your work will be easier now that I've stopped my advocacy for incorrect facts and stopped my encouragement of plagiarists. Geez, insult the volunteers at the soup kitchen because there's hunger in the world, huh? --JayHenry (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"Remotely intelligent?" Are you resorting to personal attacks. Remember, first time I complained I was attacked by 6 editors or so, 3 of them administrators, and blocked for a week. Your comment does not deserve to be read, any more than the plagiarized crap on DYK. However, again, it just proves my point: the encyclopedia's quality is second to something else, and any challenges to that something else must be met with personal attacks. Yawn. --Blechnic (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

JayHenry, there's a reason that I didn't comment on this thread. It is not productive and it is a waste of time. Have and will copyright violations occasionally get on the main page? Yes, probably less than 1% of the time. Does that mean that DYK is broken? No. Blechnic, you can't expect people to know everything. I don't expect you to know things that are common knowledge to racing fans. You shouldn't expect non-African's to know things that are common knowledge to Africans. Wikipedia can't be proactive about the main page because there aren't enough volunteer time (or interest) to fact check the dozens of articles that appear in DYK each day. Even fact checking the main hook has been time consuming and difficult. There had been copyright violation bots that used crawl the Wikipedia database looking for copyright violations. Apparently that is no longer happening. I suggest that Blechnic spend time trying to get them to resume searching. Wikipedia will be better. Royalbroil 13:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an African, and I only criticized the glaring and easily found inaccuracies. --Blechnic (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot is running today - it aims to spot copyvio's of web pages in new articles. I share everyone's frustration that neither it nor a human didn't spot Beth Wambui Mugo. As for factual errors in new articles, mea culpa. By the way, Blechnic, there is indeed (an illusion of) a prize: DYK is mentioned on 1 or 2 admin coaching pages. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Blechnic, could you link to the incident where you were attacked for pointing out inaccuracies in DYK hooks? I can't find it in your contribs. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Check my block log for dates, then run through those links and dates on my talk page. --Blechnic (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to agree that just reading all the suggestions, checking the facts cited in the hooks (as well as checking for new article length or five-fold expansion), and doing the updates and notifications four times a day is a huge task. In an ideal world every aspect of each article would be checked before it appeared on the Main Page in DYK, but this is not an ideal world. I also note DYK has almost certainly been updated twice in just the time this conversation has been going on.

I wanted to thank Blechnic for pointing out this problem. Any errors on the Main Page are probably best reported to WP:ERRORS for quickest response. I also wondered if you (Blechnic) would be willing to look at the suggested hooks at Template talk:Did you know every two days or so and check just the ones you have some expertise on (Africa related and anything else). Anything not up to snuff could be noted under the suggested hook, as is already done. My guess is part of the problem is that not many people work on or know as much about African topics, so errors in an article on the Budweiser Clydesdales are more likely to be noticed because more people are familiar with them (and I am not asking you to check such articles anyway). Thanks to everyone who keeps DYK running smoothly and to Blechnic for catching some problems. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There is not "rampant" plagarism in DYK--Mugo, which I may take the blame for, I thought (and still think, though I will not re add until I receive clarification) was in the public domain for being part of a Kenyan government source. As many know, DYK is frequently backlogged, and the real problem is the fact that not many admins work on the project. And BTW, there is rules against plagarism--we just need some admins to do the fact checking. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{citation needed} 21:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, Beth_Wambui_Mugo was only viewed 21 times in June 2006. Bebestbe (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it was damn easy to find a case where an article had been copied verbatim just going to DYK--I didn't have to spend 20 seconds searching.

I would be glad to check for African articles on DYK. I can't promise I will find everything, but I realize how foreign much of Africa is to the West, particularly when getting down to details and fact checking. My knowledge of Africa is very poor and geographically confined to western tropical Africa, though. I would like to see more articles on Africa in Wikipedia and more accurate articles. Somewhere besides South Africa and Egypt, that is. --Blechnic (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, the best way to get more fact checking into Did You Know is to set an example. We already have way more than enough volunteers for the task of ordering others to do fact checking, but not enough volunteers for actually doing it. If you were blocked only for pointing out errors or plagiarism, then of course that is an outrage. But since the block was apparently made for a private email it's your word against his, and in any case you haven't made it easy to research it. Art LaPella (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No, and since you didn't, apparently, read the entire block record, this may be why these problems keep cropping up in DYK. Try rereading it, the entire thing. Then come back and personally insult and attack me for it. --Blechnic (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I reread it. A WP:ANI consensus considers your block to have been an overreaction, but it doesn't say you were blocked simply for reporting errors or plagiarism. Is there something else you wanted me to read? I'm puzzled by "insult and attack me for it", apparently referring to the block. I thought I was offering no opinion about the block, and recommending only that you help us fact check. Art LaPella (talk) 05:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, someone else posted this with your name under it, "But since the block was apparently made for a private email it's your word against his, and in any case you haven't made it easy to research it." That's your evaluation and opinion about my being blocked, you know, "your word against his" blah blah blah. You commented without bothering to read the entire thing, that seems to be a jump to give your opinion, which was essentially a negative comment about me. Whatever. If you don't want to give your opinion about something, don't. --Blechnic (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Translation: I give up! No one cares. They'd rather spend time looking for something, anything to attack