Talk:Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by might as well have been aliens (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that when a NASA essay collection metaphorically said a mysterious stone carving "could have been made by aliens", news organizations reported on it as though it was a real announcement? Source: https://www.thespacereview.com/article/2541/1
  • ALT1: ... that NASA accidentally released a collection of essays on alien communication online several weeks before they meant to, but it was so positively received they made it free to download early? Source: https://gizmodo.com/nasa-publishes-fascinating-book-on-how-to-communicate-w-1579396194

• Reviewed: Did you know nominations/Marsh Hen Mill

Created by Vaticidalprophet (talk). Self-nominated at 05:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC).

• I agree that the thing about the misquotation is the hookiest fact in the article, but it's clumsily phrased here. For one, the quote is not actually "could have been made by aliens" so, considering this is all about misquotation, we should either use the actual quote or clarify that it is a misquotation. Then "as though it was a real announcement" implies that it was actually, I don't know, a fake announcement? A parody? Also, essay collections don't speak: the chapter in question was written by William Edmonson. – Joe (talk) 09:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

It's a lot of context to try squeeze into 200 characters, so, and I can't believe I'm suggesting this, why not go with a simple April Fools-style hook:

• ALT2 ... that according to a NASA essay collection, ancient carvings "might have been made by aliens"?

Readers can then have their expectations shattered when they click through. – Joe (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Definitely a tricky hook to try write. I don't mind that suggestion -- I'm happy to field more comments about it, because it's definitely a strong one, but it does lean heavy on the contradiction even for April Fool standards. Thank you! Vaticidalprophet 02:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: The article is long enough (>6,000 chars) and was new enough when nominated. The claims made in the article are supported by citations to reliable published sources. It presents its topic in a suitably neutral manner, not e.g. overstating the collection's importance or impact. I'm not seeing any signs of plagiarism from online sources (the only big hit is, of course, the block quotation from The Space Review). I'm approving hook ALT2; this hook is cited where the claim appears in the text and is extremely interesting; I agree that this might be a nice one to hold onto until April! The QPQ review looks good. What a nicely written article! Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

ALT2 to T:DYK/P2

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 Bryanrutherford0 and Joe Roe. {{u|Sdkb}} ^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. – 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. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 17:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I hope to be able to review this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 17:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'd recommend moving the publication history section above the cultural impact section. That'll provide a bit more context for "was picked up by Gizmodo shortly prior to its intended publication" from the beginning of the impact material.
  • Usually it goes after, but I see your argument here, so I moved it up. Vaticidalprophet 13:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• The lead mentions Artnet by name as one of the publications that picked up the out of context quote, but the body doesn't refer to it by name. Recommend referring to Artnet by name in the body, rather than just calling it an "other"
  • Named in body. Vaticidalprophet 13:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Is From Quarks to Quasars RS? It looks like a two-person outfit. Trosper at least appears to be a seasoned science journalist, but Creighton, the one who wrote this, appears to be a grad student specializing in environmental science?
  • I think I'm inclined to call it good enough. Jolene Creighton is a fairly significant science journalist now (actually, I should probably link her there). FQTQ had writers aside from its two editors (looking at the first article I clicked from the sidebar, it wasn't written by either editor), so appears to have had a genuine editorial process and attracted freelancers. Vaticidalprophet 02:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• The FQTQ ref lacks the publisher in the citation
  • Fixed! I keep forgetting those, for some reason. Vaticidalprophet 02:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• Other references look fine, and the sole image has a good enough FUR

Other than those, this looks like it's in pretty good shape. I'm a fan of that Foust quotation. Hog Farm _Talk 02:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Hog Farm, have replied to all these points. What are your thoughts? Vaticidalprophet 13:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Omitted viewpoint?

I note the omission of a potentially important aspect of SETI, namely epidemiology. Because it is omitted from the article, I can't tell if it was also omitted from the book itself. Let me make clear that I am not only considering the science of epidemiology - noting that H.G. Wells' "The War of the Worlds" ultimately credited the defeat of the fictional Martian invasion to their lack of resistance to Earth micro-organisms - but the social and cultural effects that concern about this subject could have on an alien civilization's willingness to attempt or permit communication or actual contact with other planets. Look at our own recent social and cultural responses to COVID-19. What about the subject of allowing for an alien civilization's having experienced something similar within their own world's context, or perhaps actually having barely survived an adverse epidemic experience in a prior extra-planetary contact? Or their fear of it happening if they take hypothetical reasoning seriously? This could result in a range of responses, such as deciding never to allow such contact again (or the first time) or perhaps to react aggressively against anyone causing such a problem for them in the future. Consider the public debate that occurred in the Swedish press in the Cold War era over their destroyers' depth-charging of Soviet submarines violating their territorial waters. Some letters to the editors clearly stated that NOT doing this to NATO submarines was not true neutrality. This definitely seems to fall within the cultural or anthropological aspect of SETI, but did anyone discuss it? SvensKenR (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)