This proposal aims to address conflicts of interest by adding an "intractable" section to the guideline. It specifies that by having an external relationship that could impair with the core missions of unbiased coverage, one shouldn't directly edit content or initiate deletion processes related to such a relationship.
Due to an influx of Did you Know hooks about the Gibraltar topic, a discussion was opened to see if a ban should be placed or they should continue to be shown.
Details of a backlog drive are under discussion about length of the drives, frequency of future drives, who can participate in the drives, and rewards.
This proposal aims to address conflicts of interest by adding an "intractable" section to the guideline. It specifies that by having an external relationship that could impair with the core missions of unbiased coverage, one shouldn't directly edit content or initiate deletion processes related to such a relationship.
Due to an influx of Did you Know hooks about the Gibraltar topic, a discussion was opened to see if a ban should be placed or they should continue to be shown.
Details of a backlog drive are under discussion about length of the drives, frequency of future drives, who can participate in the drives, and rewards.
Discuss this story
Am I the only one who thinks the whole "influx of Did you Know hooks about the Gibraltar topic" is very funny? I still think these should be allowed to be posted (because they are probably interesting and thoughtful DYK's), and if any group posting DYK's should be addressed for unfair publicity, then this only reflects on the complicated nature of the current DYK process, as of course it's a podium for any other editor as well. The fact that the Gibraltar group (as a mere example) is able to advance their DYK's through this process easier than others just shows how desperate we are for the proposal at the top of this page! Jane ( talk) 09:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply