Talk:Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication

Post-DYK comments
I'm seeing this long after the DYK appearance, but I have to note for the record that I think it was deeply irresponsible of us to run this hook. Per the article, we saw exactly what can happen when the statement is presented out of context. Further, we saw that it can happen even when context is provided later (farther down in the Gizmodo article, or on click through here). At Wikipedia, our goal is to improve the information landscape, not to leverage Ancient Aliens-level clickbait for the sake of getting more views. Yet, even after seeing directly the damage that such clickbait can do, we proceeded to...use exactly the same clickbait ourselves. And yes, this ran on April 1, but that's not a mitigating factor when we've declined to include Draft:Template:DYK humor or any other disclosure for the April Fools DYK hooks. It's just boggling. cc and. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 00:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)


 * On another day, maybe. On April Fools, surrounded by the other hooks, I think even American readers would have understood that we were ironically repeating the poor phrasing and selective quotation criticised in the article. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Joe Roe, I think you overestimate the extent to which Wikipedia readers are on the same page culturally (some aren't even in countries that celebrate it) and underestimate the difficulty of communicating irony. We did exactly the same thing as the clickbait headlines, and the fact that we don't seem to have perpetuated misinformation is purely luck/the fact that DYKs don't have all that much reach. The journalism world came to the understanding several years back that irresponsible humor can be a form of misinformation and I hope Wikipedia doesn't lag too far behind. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)