Wikipedia talk:Did you know/WikiCup discussion

Wikicup

I understand that people make big mistakes and in this case it is an unsolicited libel - and I have received an apology, but the idea that anyone should get so excited that they believe this is a racist thing means to me that the whole thing has got out of hand. I suggest that the major effort here is overseeing this process. Those that administer DYK should be given the wikicup - we/you are doing more work than the writer here. I think something needs to be done if we are to prevent similar paranoia and tantrums next month. Could we write to the wikicup organisers and suggest that they consider disqualifying people if they bring the wikicup "into disrepute". DYK does not need this and I think we need to find a way to contain silliness and libel. Victuallers (talk) 08:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup#Shut down. Unfortunately, from the DYK perspective, the focus is on changes for next year and not dealing with problems created by this year's contest. This means we must either continue to suffer the effects of WikiCup for another five weeks with no hope of relief or take matters into our own hands.

One possible action that DYK could take is to suspend the review and scheduling of nominations for WikiCup contestants till after the contest's end on October 31. This could either be done for contestants that are causing significant problems at DYK or for all remaining contestants. If this were to be done I would suggest moving affected suggestions to the special occasion holding area for scheduling during the first week of November. While fairly draconian in nature, I suspect this type of penalty box approach would finally encourage problematic WikiCuppers to consider the effects of their actions. --Allen3 ^talk 14:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Since when did you WP:OWN DYK, Allen? And since when did screwing seven other editors stand as an appropriate response to your unease with the actions of one? Your suggestion is utterly selfish, damaging to the project and completely lacking in good faith. Resolute 14:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you point out the section of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles your are referencing that apparently bans making proposals to talk pages? Having re-read the policy you cited, I am unable to locate the relevant portion. As to your second question, the suggestion to penalty box all contestants was included in the hope of minimizing unfairness. If one contestant is blocked from access to an easy supply of WikiCup points, is it fair to allow other contestants continued access to that supply? I brought the discussion to this talk page because I am not sure which is the better solution and was hoping the DYK community might provide additional wisdom. There is a reason the proposal is labeled as draconian and I wish there had never been a reason for making it. The above section however makes it clear that a persistent problem exists. As to your final accusation, please consult the standard response at Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith. --Allen3 ^talk 15:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the purpose in blocking anyone's access to DYK. And I am sorry, but proposing to block access to eight people for the actions of one is a bad faith suggestion that runs counter to the purpose of DYK. I realize you guys are annoyed with Tony's repetitive entries - I am too - but that is a problem with the DYK system, not the WikiCup. Punishing anyone, including Tony, for a flaw with this system is the wrong answer. He, or anyone, could just as easily flood DYK with such entries independent of any competition. I suggested in one of his submissions that it be rejected on the basis of being too repetitive, but was told that DYK does not reject suggestions on those grounds. So be it. If the submissions do not meet standards, reject them. If they do, consider them. If you know you can't take all such submissions because there are too many in the queue, then just promote the most interesting hooks and let the others fall off the page. And if that is not possible, then perhaps you guys need to look at how DYK works in the same way I am looking at how the WikiCup works. But you don't have the right to build a wall around DYK because you don't like how one individual within a group is using the system. That is the potential ownership problem I am seeing. Resolute 17:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I'm guessing that DYKs will be far less important in next year's competitions and I really don't think this a big concern for the future. For now we just have to man up for the rest of the year and take what the final contestants have coming at us. No biggie, let's just get this over with and stop talking about draconian unnecessary measures– we've managed to handle the Michigan onslaught and I'm sure we'll be able to survive another. Nomader ^(Talk) 15:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, but that means that between now and October 31st, hypothetically, one of the remaining Cup participants would be free to create 50+ cookie cutter statistics-based DYK nominations along the lines of "DYK ... that the history of mushroom research 1880 to 1881 held the record for mushroom discoveries in the history of mushroom research in the 19th century?", and another could create 50+ cookie cutter statistics-based DYK nominations along the lines of "DYK ... that July 1944 combat sorties made from the USS Lexington held the record for combat sorties made from the USS Lexington in 1944?" I'm not saying that any entries like these have appeared about mushrooms or warships for the Cup so far, but they have for other topics, and there is no basis in the rules for disallowing them, so long as the contestants create the articles and meet the basic minimum requirements.

There are a significant number of people who take the view that, if there's not a clear rule against it, then no complaint can be made against such nominations. There are also a significant number of people who think some sort of action should be possible against such nomination-floods. We are leaving ourselves open to the consequences of that unresolved clash of opinion. We've already seen the sort of loss of tempers that is possible as a result, and there's no reason to assume that the final phase of the cup will be less competitive.

If we think that needs to be avoided for this year, how would we do that? Disqualifying Cup participants from their DYKs reaching the front page until the end of the competition, as suggested above, may be perceived as draconian and unfair. An alternative might be to have some sort of temporary ad hoc rule along the lines of "any DYK submitted in 2010 by a Cup contestant after (some date fairly soon) must have a minimum of (3000, 4500, 6000, whatever) characters of readable prose to be eligible for DYK". This is messy and would lead to some being approved by reviewers unfamiliar with the temporary rule, plus perhaps a small flood of noms just before the (some date). But it might keep things calmer after that.

(Another option might be to ask the people responsible for the cup to "police" a similar rule regarding whether DYK noms after "some date" qualify, rather than policing it through the DYK approval process itself, but I don't know how practical that would be.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are proposing to punish good faith editors for working within the existing framework at DYK. For the sake of context though, how widespread is the problem here in actuality, and how is it best defined? Putting aside the Michigan sports flood for a second, are other entries of low quality, repetitive or what? And if possible, can you provide examples? I want to see if there is a greater overall issue beyond an inflated number of submissions. Resolute 19:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I personally didn't perceive the other nominations as being of low quality or repetitive, apart from perhaps the battleship nominations being slightly repetitive. By contrast, Tony does not appear to believe there was any qualitative difference between the mushroom and battleship nominations, and his nominations. I think at least a few other people agree with him on that. In some senses, that is part of the problem; as you have pointed out, the existing DYK framework has very little scope for qualitative assessment of nominations. But some people have been warning of a likely backlash from this for some time now, and it has certainly happened. I think if we just hope the remainder of the competition doesn't produce any worse upsets, then we might be disappointed in that hope. Tony does not appear to believe that he made any mistakes in his approach other than in a few comments on this talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

And that is my goal in making that suggestion. I was already aware of the pressures here as a result of the WikiCup, and running the numbers made it all the more obvious. I think any constructive input from DYK regulars on whether that suggestion is a good idea and if it would work would be appreciated, as my goal is to help reduce your headaches. Please make any other proposals that you think would help. Resolute 17:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I've started a new section for Wikicup 2011 and DYK issues, in an attempt to keep the 2010 issues and the 2011 issues separate to a certain extent --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

History of mushroom research 1880 to 1881 seems likely to be AfD'd, meaning we wouldn't have to deal with it. Likewise for many other such articles. I know it doesn't address the core issue, which I agree is a problem, but it bears keeping in mind. cmadler (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, surviving AfD would be one of the basic minimum requirements I mentioned. So long as any series of noms can meet those, there is at present, no "rule" for dealing with them. My hypothetical mushroom example was a very far-fetched one, the warship one rather less so. I'm sure there are many other possibilities. It's not hugely difficult to find a topic where large numbers of very similar articles can be created without risk of AfD, as we've already seen. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikicup 2011(and some other DYK issues)

I thought it worth breaking out the discussion of how to handle this in 2011 into a separate section.

At the moment there is a proposal to reduce substantially the number of Cup points awarded for successful DYK entries in 2011. This may solve all the problems.

However, I think it would be useful to have some fallback plan in case for some reason that does not resolve the problems. For example, if the first round for 2011 still sees significant problems for DYK, there might be a contingency plan to reduce the number of points still further for rounds 2 and onwards; or to fall back to some raised prose-character minimum, either policed at DYK or policed by the Cup organizers.

I also agree strongly with the points made about this being as much a DYK problem as a Cup problem. As has been said above, DYK does not have a clear mechanism for preventing anyone from flooding it with very similar, stub-like nominations - whether they are a Cup participant or not. Much has been made of "all hooks are boring to someone", but I still take the view that considering all hooks to be equally valid so long as they pass the most basic requirements, is not the best way to do things. If a hook is at or approaching the oldest nominations, and there is no reviewer prepared to step forward and say "yes I think this is a really interesting hook and it would really add something to the main page", then it should be rejected.

We have a lot of hooks being put forward, there is no reason to keep pushing through ones that have dull or near-identical hooks, when some editors and nominators are taking the time and trouble to make more varied articles and more interesting hooks.

Another thing that has come out of this is that some veteran DYK contributors are routinely nominating articles for DYK in the full knowledge that the article does not meet even the basic DYK criteria (e.g. length). Some have said this is acceptable and it's just how the system works. Personally I think that a good faith nomination should aim to meet the basic criteria when it is nominated, and that any (rare?) exceptions to this should be explained in the nomination (e.g. "not quite 1500 characters yet but I am hoping to get there tomorrow"). I think deliberately nominating articles that the nominator knows don't yet meet the basic criteria, is unfair on reviewers. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• There was a previous proposal to limit hook submissions to some number (2, 3, and 4 were discussed) per editor per day. This was meant to encourage editors to submit large groups as multi-article hooks, rather than force DYK regulars to make the groupings. It was discussed that this might apply only to self-noms (which count for WikiCup) but not to nominations of articles by others (which don't count toward WikiCup). So a given editor could still nom as many articles written by other editors as they want as separate hooks (this doesn't count toward WikiCup), but could only submit N (2, 3, or 4) hooks per day of articles they worked on. It was also suggested that enforcement could be flexible; at times when the backlog is high, or when it's an experienced editor (which probably includes all WikiCup participants, at least beyond the first round) it might be enforced strictly, but if the backlog is low or it is a new editor, it might be relaxed. I previously thought 2 was too low, but the more I think about it, the more I think it's reasonable. cmadler (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• A daily cap would affect only a few people, really, so such a solution could help control both DYK, the WikiCup and any other unforseen projects while preventing any collateral damage to a typical editor who works on a single article. Certainly a good idea. Alternatively, a cap could be structured such that it limits only articles related to a single topic. So, for example, I could not submit three hockey bios in one day, but I could do a hockey bio, a Canada related article and a food article. Resolute 19:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• What would qualify as a topic though? If an editor enjoys writing sports articles, would it be sports in general, hockey in general, Canadian hockey, or hockey for a specific team? I think topics would have to be clearly defined if this is going to work, and because next year's Wikicup seems to have undertaken new measures in response to the backlogs here, I question whether it's completely necessary. Nomader ^(Talk) 23:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• It may not be, I agree. And yes, it seems my suggestion could add unnecessary overhead. At present, my suggestion to take an axe to point submissions for DYKs remains a suggestion. If you think it would reduce issues here, it might help to indicate that at the Wikicup scoring talk page. Proposed changes that have the support of the regulars here would help improve the level of harmony between the two projects. Resolute 23:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Actually Resolute, the more I think about it, the more I think it might be necessary to have additional overhead as you've suggested. Just because the point totals for DYK submissions has been lowered, it doesn't mean that people doing the WikiCup would stop submitting them en masse and it can never hurt to have a back-up. Either way I'll join the discussion over at the WikiCup in favor of your suggestion. Nomader ^(Talk) 23:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• As an additional thought, I've proposed a submission cap on the WikiCup side as a potential fallback option. There are ways we can control this without resorting to moving the goalposts on some editors. Also, the participation of some of you here in the scoring discussions are appreciated. They will help us achieve a consensus where some of these topics might otherwise have languished without comment. Resolute 05:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Just driving-by here and hopefully not inflaming this situation any more than it has been. As a relatively new editor, I do not know all the rules. On wikipedia in general, I will initially apply common sense; if someone points out a mistake of mine, I will read the rules before responding. In the DYK case, my common sense rule has always been one submission per day per nominator. I find it surprising that, having now read the DYK rules, submissions are not limited in this way. On a side issue, I recently found peer-review does have such a one submission per person per day rule whilst, again surprisingly, GAN does not (I have yet to check FAC rules). One wonders whether DYK and GAN rules have been changed over the years to accommodate this competitive madness --Senra (Talk) 11:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• I doubt it– I don't think it was really an issue until recently with the growth of the WikiCup. I can't speak for GAN, but I do know that with regards to DYK, I've definitely gone on an editing spree and created two or three articles in a day, and then not created anything for a good month or so– if DYK disallowed multiple nominations for one day, there'd be no way to submit all of those articles, so I feel that having those kind of measures in place wouldn't really work out. But I see where you're coming from. Nomader ^(Talk) 00:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it really correct that there would be "no way to submit all those articles" ? Just because you couldn't submit them all on one day, doesn't mean you couldn't submit them at all. The more tentative proposals right now are for "max of 2 self-noms per editor per day", which would cover your entire spree within 48 hours. If a spree was a dozen articles not just three or four, the creator could keep some of them in user space if they were really desperate for DYK credits.

Let's remember that "2 self-noms per editor per day" would still allow an individual editor to nominate around 60 of their own articles for DYK in one month - which is exactly the sort of level of self-noms that has caused concern and upset. It's hardly very restrictive!

I wouldn't personally be against the "1 self-nom per editor per day" rule, but I think some people would. I understand that people sometimes create new articles in waves, but still, look at the averages! My view is that if an editor is boiler-plating article creation to the extent that they want to get (potentially) more than 30 self-noms into DYK in a month, that is not really achieving the purpose that DYK was set up for. Go back and revisit those articles a year later - are they really being further developed in a way that suggests they encourage outside interest and have helped the encyclopedia?

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger thinks that the "DYK burden is a hoax"

I just came across Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring#The DYK burden is a hoax, started by TonyTheTiger. Any other opinions? 159.83.4.148 (talk) 22:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably, any expressions of opinion should be made at the talk page linked.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

His arrogance there is just astounding and shows no willingness to work with us. And he wants us to conform to CUP? Let's just do what should've been done long ago and ban Tony from DYK already. He is simply not someone we need around DYK. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 00:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not impressed by it either. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you think I was trying to impress you?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Have I missed something? I don't see any "arrogance" in Tony's posts, just an assertion based on his analysis that Wikicup kept DYK "from falling apart". One may agree or disagree with the thesis, but I don't see what "arrogance" has to do with it. Gatoclass (talk) 03:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that the mere suggestion that the Cup keeps us moving is arrogant in and of itself. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 03:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the CUP is creating the input for the DYK process is a form of sustaining it in it current form as a 4x a day process.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

@Strange: Does it really matter? We don't disqualify noms just because they come from "arrogant" people; we judge them on the basis of their content, not on their nominators' beliefs about DYK. All that shouldn't really matter. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The Cup floods DYK with many marginal cookie-cutter articles and the backlog that results suppresses submissions by a more diverse pool of editors, ones who are more interested in creating articles than in scoring points. The notion that the WikiCup sustains rather than strains DYK is a bit dangerous to the long-term survival of DYK. - Dravecky (talk) 05:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The DYK math does not work by just adding and subtracting (wikicup stats). There is no use speculating what would happen if wikicup didn't exist - off course WP and DYK won't collapse. Tony merely said what he sees through his window, and I do not see anything useful in these pessimistic threads, either for DYK or wikicup projects (only distract me from writing). Materialscientist (talk) 05:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Dravecky has stated the core of this issue: marginal cookie-cutter articles. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

In terms of cookie cutter articles, the CUP will always come down to some sort of cookie cutter production in the finals. There is no other way to win unless they use about a 25 multiple for core articles. However, I have just never looked at the DYK submissions and said there is some guy producing a bunch of the same type of articles so I won't submit mine. I have also never said there is a backlog and it looks like my article will take 10 days to get to the main page instead of 7 so I won't submit mine. I do think queue backlog affects GA submissions though--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

In the end, it doesn't really matter whether the Cup is a huge burden or not. Realistically, consensus on how the section is run isn't going to change until we've passed the breaking point entirely. While the Cup may or may not "strain" the system, we're not yet near the breaking point of the current setup (though I'd hate to think how we would have handled this back before the queue system or its "Next update" precursor). *If* the influx of new articles ever reaches an unmanageable overload, that's when discussion is actually going to result in change, not before. But then, maybe I'm just being overly cynical. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 23:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)