Did you know?—good idea, needs reform: The English Wikipedia's did you know (DYK) section has been a feature of the site's main page since February 2004. From the beginning, the section has served as a place to highlight Wikipedia's newest articles. But over the last few years, the did you know section has gotten steadily larger and more complex, and non-notable or plagiarized articles have occasionally slipped through the reviewing process, leading numerous editors to call for reforms to the system. We asked two editors to share their views.
The English Wikipedia's did you know (DYK) section has been a feature of the site's main pagesince February 2004. From the beginning, the section has served as a place to highlight Wikipedia's newest articles; the first, pencil sharpener, was written by Raul654, who had only been an editor for six months. But over the last few years, the did you know section has gotten steadily larger and more complex, and non-notable or plagiarized articles have occasionally slipped through the reviewing process, leading numerous editors to call for reforms to the system.
We asked two editors who frequent the process, The Rambling Man and Crisco 1492, to weigh in on the debate. The views expressed are those of the authors alone; responses and critical commentary are invited in the comments section.
The Rambling Man: DYK has lost its original purpose
I'll start in a position contrary to my declaration: I think DYK is a great idea.
Now for the bad news. It's not working. I've been editing Wikipedia since May 2005 and only recently, having worked on WP:ERRORS for a while, have I become aware of the slow but inevitable heat death of a behemoth of the main page. DYK pre-dates my involvement with the grand project by a couple of months, but looking back, and comparing the rules then to now there's been little change.
A long-term DYK editor, attempting to paper over the cracks
One tale often related is that DYK is intended for "new users" to be encouraged to create new material and "be rewarded" by way of a main page mention. Indeed many disgruntled DYK regulars have informed me that they wouldn't be the Wikipedian they are today without DYK having encouraged them to start editing and "make a difference". It may have been true, but it's now a fallacy. A quick look at the edit count of the most recent sets of DYKs placed on the main page shows average contributions per editor exceeding 10,000. Moreover, we actively encourage DYKs to "score points" in Wikipedia contests such as WP:WIKICUP. The push is no longer to encourage and retain new users, it's to win an arbitrary Wikipedia contest.
But to get an item on the main page, what is required? Meet one of a complex plethora of criteria, which generally involves a quid pro quo review often shortened to QPQ. The QPQ system of review at DYK is used as a replacement for quality reviews from multiple editors without conflicts of interest. Therein lies one of the major flaws. QPQ can be read as follows: "review my article favourably, I'll do the same, we'll both get our main page moment of glory". Until lately, DYKs have been earning frequent flyer miles at WP:ERRORS and have even made the odd sojourn to WP:ANI for distasteful content.
An endemic problem: the "hook". The purpose of a Did you know... section ought to be to draw people's interest to something that wasn't obvious, that titilates, interests, grabs their attention. Instead, we have banal and uninteresting hooks, some of which are so contrived that they beggar belief. "Did you know that Footballer A played in Match B?" is a common version. Worse is the hook that conflates unrelated information in order to disguise itself as interesting "Did you know that Footballer A was born in B, but ate apples in C?" These kind of hooks are regular visitors to the main page.
Finally, DYK is plagued by curious technical issues. It's a template nightmare. To start a nomination, you need to add a template to a template. How is this encouraging our new users who find all parts of Wiki markup a jungle? Also, the QPQ system means that once one or more of the complex criteria are met, a main page appearance for a nomination is "guaranteed". The hook will feature, but for no longer than eight hours (if the process is "working") and that's that. The mad rush to update the hooks three times a day results in low quality content being placed on the main page. A common counter-argument is that it's all about getting new interest, but since most editors are using DYK for other purposes, that wears thin.
But I like the concept, the original idea, show me some genuinely interesting facts about genuinely new and half-decent quality articles, and I'll show you a section of the main page we can all be proud of. Right now, we have a broken and dysfunctional process which needs be properly overhauled. The renovation process must involve all comers—not just the DYK hierarchy, who appear to believe there's no problem.
The Rambling Man is a British Wikipedian who has been editing Wikipedia since 2005.
Crisco 1492: DYK serves a purpose, even if it needs changes
Before I talk about if and how we should change DYK, there are two things that need to be addressed. The first is the widely held belief that Wikipedia does not need new articles (and, as such, DYK is no longer necessary). The second is the relationship between new editors and DYK.
The belief that Wikipedia doesn't need any new articles is, to put it quite frankly, rubbish. Systemic bias has given this encyclopedia a clear bias towards Anglosphere topics. Significant subjects from non-English areas are still lacking (for instance, classic Malay literature, a field with almost 200 years of scholarship, was still a redlink at the time this piece was published), as are hundreds of thousands of more minor topics that are still notable. My first DYK, Salah Asuhan back in April 2011, was on one of the most significant works of Indonesian literature, and since then I have brought almost 600 articles on Indonesia to DYK.
I've yet to run out of topics, and can easily name another 15 or 20 articles that we should have.
We need less of this...
and more of this.
That's just one topic, in one country. What about the literature of Zimbabwe? Of Malaysia? What about the music of Argentina? And what about all of those important articles which are still stubs, and thus eligible for DYK through expansion? Plainly, there's still work to be done, and enough new content can feasibly be created to keep DYK running for years.
Some have questioned DYK's value in attracting and retaining new editors, in part because several established editors seem to responsible for much of the content. One must remember that even they were newbies once, confused over Wikipedia's labyrinthine policies and guidelines. My first article, Long Road to Heaven, was written in the 2002 Bali bombings article in 2007 before being moved to its own page; my second article was not until four years later. Because of the sense of pride I got in seeing Salah Asuhan on the main page, I kept writing and improving, branching out into new content, to the point that I have now created and/or been a major contributor to almost 100 pieces of featured content. Perhaps mine is not a typical story, but it is illustrative of DYK's contribution towards producing and retaining quality editors: it can give people the confidence (and the skills) necessary to write better articles and, in the end, contribute increasingly better work.
Now, back to the issue at hand: DYK. I don't know anyone who disagrees. DYK has room for improvement, and change is necessary. However, this change must begin from the beginning, then develop logically from there. We've already given DYK a clear mission statement, thanks in no small part to Prioryman. Next is consolidating and simplifying the rules so that they are both easier to understand for new editors and closer to the actual expectations of the Wikipedia community.
A minor example: for years now, the supplementary guidelines at DYK have used a rule of thumb of one citation per paragraph. This measure is now considered lacking by most of the Wikipedia community; it is not uncommon for verifiable information (i.e. information for which a reference could be found) to be removed simply because no reference is included yet. If all information being referenced is what the Wikipedia community expects, DYK rules should reflect that.
This is obviously a massive undertaking. Ten years of rule creep is a lot to clean out, and any substantial changes to the rules (such as the one I suggested above) would need input from the community. Not just the so-called 'DYK-ers'—a term I despise, because editors are individuals and not just part of a mindless 'them' repeating a single party line—but the Wikipedia community in general. Changes to DYK affect the main page, and changes to the main page affect everyone.
Working together in a collegial atmosphere, we should be able to hammer out a balance between quality and ease of accessibility for new editors, and then collaboratively work at enforcing these standards and helping editors fix their mistakes rather than discouraging them from further contributions. Let's not forget that, somewhere, there may be new editors able to write a thousand articles—if we just teach them how.
Crisco 1492 is an editor living in Indonesia who has been involved in content development, both on Wikipedia as a writer and off Wikipedia as a trainer. Since becoming involved with DYK in April 2011, he has taken part in over a thousand reviews and nominated more than six hundred articles. He also claims credit for the first DYK to run after becoming a Featured Article and the shortest DYK hook.
Discuss this story
Initial comments
Purpose of the section
I've read the purpose of the "Did you know" section. I totally agree with some of the goals and disagree with others.
The difference between "Did you know" and other sections in the main page is the hook. It's "short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article". That's a great way to attract readers. I think that portals also do that, and should be improved.
So I don't care if the article is recent or if the editor is a beginner. There's other ways to encourage to create new articles or editors. --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion of GAs
I work at DYK regularly and so am familiar with most of the material presented in the Signpost article already. The biggest change at DYK recently seems to have been the inclusion of GAs and I didn't see any commentary on this aspect. I haven't noticed a big effect myself but haven't seen any detailed analysis or stats. How's that going? Andrew (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A response to The Rambling Man
The Rambling Man: I agree with a lot of what you say. Bad hooks are a problem. QPQ reviews aren't ideal. Template-creep is infuriating. But I do not buy the claims you make linking DYK and new users.
You say that one good reason for DYK is that it encourages new users to contribute. If it does encourage newbies, this is a good thing. I think we can all agree on this. What this does not mean that there are not any other good reasons for DYK. You say "Indeed many disgruntled DYK regulars have informed me that they wouldn't be the Wikipedian they are today without DYK having encouraged them to start editing and "make a difference". It may have been true, but it's now a fallacy." Presumably, by this you mean that while DYK once encouraged new people to contribute, it no longer does. Correct me if I am wrong. First off, I'm not convinced that you're using "fallacy" correctly. Second, you don't justify your claim. The fact that a "look at the edit count of [the authors of] the most recent sets of DYKs placed on the main page shows average contributions per editor exceeding 10,000" does not mean that DYK is not serving the purpose of encouraging newbies, it just means that a lot of the articles going onto DYK are not from encouraged newbies. You make a sideswipe at the WikiCup, which seems neither here nor there, and conclude that, because DYK is encouraged by the WikiCup, "[t]he push is no longer to encourage and retain new users".
The argument seems to be that the only good reason for DYK is "to encourage and retain new users", and, as it is failing in this, DYK is failing. Not only have you not provided evidence that it is failing in this purpose, but there is no reason to accept that DYK has only that purpose, which is contrary to what is said on the relevant project page. Here are five other plausible purposes for DYK: First, to encourage the expansion of old stubs, by giving people a number (five times the length) to aim for. Second, to encourage the creation of topics which are interesting, but which are unlikely to reach GA status. Would I have created Flass if I didn't have DYK to aim for? Maybe, maybe not. Third, to encourage expansion to GA quality for MP exposure of topics. Fourth, to engage readers in Wikipedia articles. Fifth, to show readers and editors that Wikipedia is constantly improving and expanding. I could probably come up with ten more good things DYK can do. As such, I reject your suggestion that the main/only reason for DYK is to encourage new users, I see no reason to believe Wikipedia is failing to do this, and, though I share your reservations about some hooks and some process issues, I reject your suggestion that DYK is "not working". J Milburn (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you miss a salient point. You suggest "If it's all good content,"... and it clearly is not (although standards have had a step improvement over the last month or so following the scrutiny applied). I'm sorry this has made you so hostile. As I said, we are, both of us, entitled to our opinions, and mine is that thousands of DYKs have been botched together to fulfil the dreams of those seeking to win barnstars, QPQing each other all the way. The purpose has been hijacked. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Quid pro quo"
The requirement that an editor submitting a DYK nomination should simultaneously review a pending nomination was presumably implemented (I haven't seen the actual discussion) to address backlogs in the review process and to increase participation in the process. It certainly has done the latter. One might presume that an inexperienced reviewer might not be as familiar with the steps of a good review as an experienced one, however, which is why an additional review before an approved hook actually enters the queue makes sense.
Although the "review another article yourself" requirement makes sense, I strongly dislike the term "quid pro quo review" and would urge that it not be used. As reflected in our article at quid pro quo, the phrase has a strong connotation of "doing a favor" or "you scratch my back..." that we'd be better off avoiding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point about the name ... perhaps we should change it to Nominate One, Review One (NORO)? Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DYK - not for newbies
I disagree with the premise that the purpose of DYKs is to encourage newbies. The way I see it, DYK was presumably created to highlight interesting facts from WP to embellish the main page. In order to prevent recycling of old content, it was initially limited to newly added content only. Later on it was amended to included new GAs - probably to broaden scope for getting new facts, enable older older content to be brought and as an encouragement to up articles to GA status.
If newbies are encouraged, empowered by DYK, great! But DYK's high standards as laid down in the rules is at odds with the newbies lack of knowledge, skills and experience. Dumbing down DYK processes & stds for newbies is exactly opposite to the Rambling Man's complaint about DYK not having interesting hooks, and being candidates at WP:ERRORS & WP:ANI.
Imho, newbies face two barriers - the high standards of editting required for good DYKs, and, secondly, the technical issue mentioned by the Rambling Man ie the process of workflow of nomination, review, placement in queue etc which does deserve to be simplified. It is much more important for newbies that this happens as it will make it easier for them to place DYKs. Also, its that part which is most easily remedied. Other fundamental changes would need discussion and consensus and probably not be doable in the short term.
AshLin (talk) 07:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redlink
@Crisco 1492: Classic Malay literature is no longer a redlink (Blame User:Modest Genius for that ;P). Perhaps you can reword the sentence a bit (e.g. "still doesn't have its own article")? Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 12:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DYK is for the readers primarily; as well as new and/or better articles, not new editors
Though DYK helped me immensely in getting started, its main function for me has always been being Wikipedia's equivalent of a "share" button. It lets you highlight fascinating things in articles in Wikipedia. A way to draw in readers. And that's demonstrable enough since truly interesting articles in DYK get thousands of pageviews with people sometimes leaving in comments in the talk pages. It's also one of the few ways we gain satisfaction from our work. The knowledge that someone is reading it and perhaps benefiting from it.
Though it just so happens that it sometimes helps "new" editors learn the ropes because of the review system, I think it would be a mistake to approach DYK like it was a newbie section primarily, or to criticize it because most contributors aren't "new". Because it really is not a newbie section. To even get into it you need to already have been editing for quite a bit, and are already familiar with the hows and whys of writing an article. Including our labyrinthine guidelines and policies.
I've done some work volunteering for Articles for Creation in IRC a while back, and I know what true newbies are like (excluding the paid single-purpose PR people that comprise the bulk of them). And honestly, I wouldn't exactly put the articles they write on the main page. No matter how well-intentioned. It's the equivalent of putting your six-year old daughter's crayon drawing on the main display hall of your art gallery (though that seems to be fashionable in the art world nowadays LOL). She may grow up to be a master artist, but you're not doing your gallery any favors until then. Undeniably, it is a very good way of encouraging her to paint more (still using the gallery metaphor). But you still have to set quality standards that she must aspire to before her work can be displayed alongside that of the rest.
It's more accurate to view DYK as a "lite" form of the featured article section in terms of its purpose within the community. Especially given that it has now integrated GA into it. IMO, it has three main goals:
In short, DYK is a place for existing editors to grow. it is not a place to reach out to totally clueless editors who have never hit the Edit button until now.
The main problems of DYK from experience is simply rule creep and the way it has become too bureaucratic. The way we usually enforce the rules with no consideration to the readers.
For example, a new article on a boring hook on a boring subject with two paragraphs in it will be included in DYK. No matter how boring. Simply because it passes the word count and the date of creation rules. Doesn't matter if no one will ever click them, we pass them because they pass the rules. Meanwhile a preexisting far more interesting article will be invalidated simply because of things like the technicality that some time in its existence, someone added paragraphs and paragraphs of rubbish copyvio content. And DYK rules for some unfathomable reason will always include those in the prior word count. Making the article eternally ineligible for expansion. No matter if the article was really about something fascinating. Or that in actuality it was a true stub once the copyvio/vandalism/rubbish content had been taken out. It's one of the reasons why people sometimes use it badly for the WikiCup. Because they can get away with the bare minimum. (Not saying everyone who uses it for the WikiCup are doing so, however. Some do make the effort of finding truly interesting subjects to write about)
The problem is that we treat DYK like we were government employees processing tax returns, when we should be treating it with a bit more creativity. The state of QPQ merely reflects that, QPQ itself is not the problem. A bit more consideration should be given to getting the attention of the readers. Of educating them, and of pride in what our community has written. Because again, let's not forget that DYK is literally a "Did you know...?" section. And it ends up in the Main Page. What we put there affects how the world sees us in terms of quality and reliability. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dull hooks
As a seven-year veteran of DYK with over 550 hooks, I found this criticism better put than others we've gotten in the past, perhaps because TRM has more actual experience with the feature and isn't angling to replace it with something he prefers. Generally, I think, a lot fo this results from our efforts ca. 2009–11 to automate the process—when everything had to be done manually, there were a lot more hands and eyes on each hook and we could spot problems more frequently (I'm not saying we were perfect). Two items in particular stand out: the QPQ system, about which I've said what I really wanted to in my response to Brad above, and the "dull hooks" problem, which I've often commented on in particular nominees.
Spotting a good hook in an article takes more than just the usual writing skills. It takes—dare I say it?—journalistic skills, since you're basically looking for the buried lede. And just as a lot of new editors don't start with the greatest of writing or researching skills, they don't have the editorial skill to find this, even when it's there and they've sourced it. They often go for things like "... that X is Y's brother?" (so?) or "that X won the Y Award" (someone has to win it).
They also come about because of unfamiliarity with the subject matter on the part of nominator and/or reviewer. See, for instance, why I changed the hook for Froze-to-Death Mountain. Would someone with less familiarity with mountaineering than I have let the original hook through, and not realized what the really surprising fact in the article was? Probably.
We need a page explaining better how to find a good hook in the article you want to nominate. If someone nags me enough, I will do it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On gamification in general
I'm not sure I feel fully comfortable with overt gamification of any part of Wikipedia. It's very easy to lose sight of the raison d'etre as the game becomes an end in itself. The editorials mentioned the technical jungle and the potentially hostile nature of the reviews, those things might not make much sense in the big picture, but they make a lot of sense once you start to view DYK from the "gaming" context.
Established "high scorers" want to create and maintain barriers to new entrants. The game has to be "winnable" so they can't make it impossible to score points, but they can put in subtle barriers to new players. This might happen on a subconscious level that even the players aren't fully cognizant of. As in any game, there's an undercurrent of contempt toward "newbs", while still maintaining a superficial facade of friendliness toward new users, at least those who are willing to climb the relatively steep learning curve without being spoonfed.
I'm really not picking on DYK alone here, I see this a little bit in a project I'm more involved in, AfC, which has become slightly gamified as well. It's not unique to Wikipedia either, it seems to happen in a lot of pursuits. Ham radio, for example, had a tremendous outcry from mostly older members when Morse code barriers to entry were eliminated. Gigs (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]