User:Yomangani/DYK

DYK is doomed
The scaremongering about some nebulous community coming in to destroy DYK is just that. About 50 people have mustered the energy to comment on the main page RFC after it being open for months and of those there is roughly a 2 to 1 split in favour of keeping DYK. The "community" isn't a list of 50 editors who engage with an RFC on main page design. It's not the 15 or so who wanted DYK of the main page and it certainly isn't the 1 or 2 who might do something about it. The only community that matters for DYK is the visitors. There's simply no massed ranks of slavering reformists with siege engines being kept at bay only by the promise of a template.

...that said...
DYK could certainly do with an overhaul. Couldn't it?

Firstly, what is the purpose of DYK?
"The DYK section gives publicity to newly created or expanded Wikipedia articles. This serves as a way to thank editors who create new content, encourages editors to contribute to and improve articles and the encyclopedia, and brings new and expanded articles to the attention of readers who view the Main Page."

What are not the purposes of DYK?

 * To improve articles to GA standard
 * To help editors win competitions or trophies
 * To increase editors' standing in the editing community in preparation for RFA
 * To give editors any bragging rights

How does it work?

 * Editors submit new or expanded articles
 * Other editors check the articles comply with a set of rules and are passed, failed or flagged as needing further work
 * The passed articles are promoted to the prep area (usually by another editor)
 * The articles from the prep areas are promoted to the queues by an admin
 * The queued articles are automatically placed on the main page by a bot which then "credits" the authors and nominators

So what are the perceived problems?

 * Many DYK articles are stub-like and of poor quality. The main page should be reserved for the best articles the encyclopedia has to offer
 * Many nominators churn out DYKs with little care or attention merely to get kudos, trophies, or to raise their standing in a chart
 * Many hooks are incorrect, ungrammatical or poorly spelt
 * Many DYK articles are plagiarised
 * Many DYK articles contain copyright violations
 * Many DYKs use unreliable sources
 * Many DYKs push a biased view of their subject
 * Many DYKs are thinly veiled attacks on living people
 * Many DYKs have hooks that focus on negative aspects of the article
 * Many DYKs have hooks that are uninteresting
 * Many DYKs are uninteresting articles
 * Many DYKs hooks are torturous attempts to cram many articles into a single sentence
 * DYK has no quality control
 * DYK has no accountability
 * DYK has a reward culture

Are these problems real?
Some of them are:
 * Many DYK articles are stub-like and of poor quality and use unreliable sources. Whether this is a problem depends on whether you believe that the main page should be reserved for the best articles the encyclopedia has to offer. If you believe that to be true then there is no way for DYK to ever appear on the main page.
 * Some nominators churn out DYKs with little care or attention and are happy to get kudos, trophies, or to raise their standing in a chart. This is a problem for DYK only because when these articles are submitted by experienced editors it redirects effort from other poor articles which are submitted by new editors that genuinely don't know better.
 * Quite a few hooks are incorrect, ungrammatical or poorly spelt. For me this is a real problem. Articles can be as weak as we like, but the hook is our attempt to present a professional look. Typos just make us look like we don't care.
 * Some DYKs have some plagiarised material. And so do many other articles. I'm sure there are GAs and FAs out there with undetected plagiarism too. DYK reviewers do their best to detect it before it gets on the main page, but it's not their sole responsibility.
 * Some DYK articles contain copyright violations. And so do many other articles. I'm sure there are GAs and FAs out there with undetected copyvio too...etc.
 * Some DYKs push a biased view of their subject. Etc....
 * Some DYKs are thinly veiled attacks on living people. Etc...
 * Some DYKs have hooks that focus on negative aspects of the article. This is increasingly infrequent but is a genuine problem.
 * Some DYKs have hooks that are uninteresting. This is subjective but quite often true. Live with it.
 * Some DYKs are uninteresting articles. This is subjective but is often a symptom of the trophy culture that has developed in DYK. It is easy to produce cookie cutter articles once a deep vein has been struck on a subject.
 * Many DYKs hooks are torturous attempts to cram many articles into a single sentence. True.
 * DYK has no quality control. False. What it doesn't have is a very strict or perfect quality control. It doesn't have a quality control that only allows perfect articles through. It has a quality control that checks a few basic rules.
 * DYK has no accountability. DYK isn't an entity. It can't be held accountable. It is a process. If you want to hold somebody accountable identify who you think is responsible and go and try to hold them to account.
 * DYK has a reward culture. True.

What have been the proposals to solve these problems

 * Scrap DYK
 * Replace DYK with a selection of from Good Articles
 * Make reviews more vigorous
 * Introduce a directorate
 * Introduce a checklist for reviews
 * Introduce a template to every nomination which duplicates the checklist and requires reviewers to sign off on each individual item
 * Reduce the number of articles displayed each day
 * Have admins perform a second review when promoting hooks to the queue
 * Make QPQ reviewing compulsory
 * Scrap QPQ reviewing

Do these reforms have merit?

 * Scrap DYK - this doesn't have much support from anybody. 15 people in the world thought it enough of a good idea to sign their name on a proposal.
 * Replace it with a selection from GA - this had even less support than the proposal to scrap it
 * Make reviews more vigorous - there's no harm in this, but it saps time and effort. It naturally leads to the number of articles displayed each day being reduced.
 * Introduce a directorate - this is somehow imagined to increase accountability. It doesn't
 * Introduce a checklist for reviews - there's no harm in reminding reviewers what they should be looking for during a review. It has to be a net positive in and of itself
 * Introduce a template to every nomination which duplicates the checklist - this does nothing to improve the robustness of the reviews. It may serve as a quick reference for promoting an article to the preparation area or indicating what areas need improving, but it does not improve DYK by its presence alone.
 * Reduce the number of articles displayed each day - this means either making editorial judgements on the merit of articles or discouraging nominators. This doesn't necessarily mean less reviewing or more robust reviewing and could mean that "bad" articles would spend longer on the main page. It is not in line with the stated goals of DYK.
 * Have admins perform a second review when promoting hooks to the queue - this is a time sink and devolves responsibility to the promoting admins.
 * Make QPQ reviewing compulsory - this is the current state. The advantage is that more articles get reviewed. The disadvantage is that most reviewers don't want to review, some can't review effectively and some will only perform a cursory review before passing an article.
 * Scrap QPQ reviewing - this would prevent forced reviewing but would probably mean less articles were reviewed. There is no guarantee that volunteer reviewers would be any better at reviewing than some of those forced into reviewing, and it is possible that those currently doing voluntary reviews would either become overwhelmed and stop reviewing entirely or move to more cursory reviews in an attempt to increase throughput.

What of the reforms so far?
Who is going to say these are a bad thing? They make it easier to track nominations, they make it easier to edit, provide easier tracking. Win.
 * Nomination pages:

The checklist looks like a good idea, but...a checklist and a template are not the same thing. The checklist got (and here you may wring your hands all you like about polling regulations) broad approval in the RFC. No template was even discussed in the RFC. If anybody wants to use a template they can but I'm not going to.
 * Checklist:

What hasn't been addressed?

 * DYK's purpose - the proposed reforms have all been directed at increasing accountability and improving the quality of articles that appear on the main page. Unfortunately that has little to do with the aims of DYK. "The DYK section gives publicity to newly created or expanded Wikipedia articles"; nothing in there about them being high quality. "This serves as a way to thank editors who create new content"; not "This serves as a way to hold editors to account". "... encourages editors to contribute to and improve articles and the encyclopedia ..."; not "presents readers with high-quality finished articles that they will be scared to touch" or "subjects articles to a gruelling review process at the end of which their editors will be held to account for their failings or at least discouraged from contributing further". "... and brings new and expanded articles to the attention of readers who view the Main Page"; "new and expanded" not "top quality".
 * DYK's reward culture - this apparently has knock on effects with RFA, Wikicup, and editors perceived standing in the wider community

So what do you suggest?
Most of these are pretty simple because they don't involve any changes to code or templates or procedures. They involve thinking about what DYK is for which only takes a second and doesn't involve any more work for anybody. Any one of these taken individually would be an improvement, it isn't a package deal.
 * Add the checklist to the nomination editing header like the tick and cross template code. "Before approving this nomination please make sure you have checked the following:...". That acts as an aid to reviewers without regimenting them. (this one does take a little work)
 * Get over the idea that the main page is ONLY for links to the very best content. It clearly isn't. We have one FA, one FP (below the fold) and one FL once a week (all these regularly get reports at Main Page/Errors too so they aren't beyond reproach). The rest of the main page is filled with substandard articles that urgently need attention. It seems to be a recurring meme that "the community" wants to use the main page only to showcase our best work. This is a fantasy fuelled by a poorly worded question in the Main Page RFC to which hardly anybody responded. The community isn't a few self-selected, self-important editors.
 * Don't start believing that DYK can ever have a rigorous enough process to stop copyvios, plagiarism, BLP violations, biased articles, etc., etc. getting out onto the main page. It can't.
 * Don't freak out when a major error is caught in a DYK on the main page. It was caught. Wouldn't it be worse if it wasn't caught? Yes, it might have been better if it was caught before it hit the main page but it isn't the end of the world.
 * Change the header on the DYK current hooks to make it clear that these articles need work and that we want readers to edit them, etc. Change "From Wikipedia's newest content:" to "From Wikipedia's newest content; these articles may need improving, correcting or deleting. If you'd like to help, pick one and start editing." The readers are as much "the community" as anybody else. Inform them of what they are likely to find and make them responsible for improving it.
 * Think of DYK as a process to encourage new editors. Experienced editors can get some affirmation elsewhere or through supporting inexperienced editors through the DYK process.
 * Read the hooks in the prep area. That's quality control.
 * Admins - watch Main Page/Errors. This and the queues is the only place you do need to be accountable because the non-admins can't edit those bits.
 * If you've already submitted 340 articles to DYK, ask yourself why you are submitting the 341st one.
 * If you have a 100K article that you've moved from userspace and are submitting to GAC or FAC next week, ask yourself why you are submitting it to DYK.
 * If you are an experienced editor, ask yourself what you are hoping to get out of submitting an article to DYK.
 * If you are a reviewer, ask the people from the points above why they are submitting those articles. Don't accept "because I can" as an answer.
 * If you are a nominator, watch the nomination and respond to queries and suggestions. It's the least you can do.
 * If your only reason for submitting article through DYK is to have them linked to from the main page try OTD instead. The articles there stay linked all day and often repeat year after year.
 * Change the "credits" to "notifications". Then let anybody who is interested sign up for a notification for when an article appears on the main page. Coupled with the header notice that basically says "All these articles are probably crap" would mean any kudos associated with DYK pretty much disappears.
 * Remove DYKs from the wikicup
 * If somebody brags about how many DYKs they have at RFA (or anywhere else) then point out that DYK is a place for substandard article to be improved. Does anybody want to brag about how poor the articles they've work on are?
 * Get rid of the DYK medals. Do you want a medal for adding 25 substandard articles to the encyclopedia?
 * Stop updating the list of wikipedians by number of DYK nominations (or whatever it is called). It's unlikely to get deleted but you can choose to stop updating your "personal" score. Make a note in your userspace if it's important to you to note how many possibly substandard articles you've submitted; DYK is not a competition.
 * If we must have the medals, make DYK reviewer medals. That's worth rewarding far more than nominating is.
 * Remove this. Unreadable nonsense is not something to be proud of.
 * If you have 17 articles that you are trying to squeeze into one hook have a think about whether that is actually necessary.
 * Doublecheck QPQ reviews if you have time.
 * Make a new page for reporting errors in the prep areas and queues and transclude the DYK Main page errors there as well. I think many people may be reluctant to post queries about hooks in the queues to the main discussion page, many others don't watch it, and often errors get lost among the vitriolic outpourings about the 17th breach of the RFC or the transgression of rule 4 subsection b12 paragraph 3.
 * None of this means that reviewers shouldn't check off the checklist items or fix up an article if they have time. It doesn't mean don't be a rigorous as you can be in the review. It just means that if an article that says the world is flat makes it to the main page and gets picked up by somebody we should look at that as a positive outcome. If we discourage nominators then all that happens is that article sits in article space for the next three years and the editor that produced it turns out 300 articles with exactly the same claim.