This page is helpful, but can it be somehow expanded to include the faulty hooks that ran nonetheless on the mainpage? Those include last week's stab wound (the hook is incorrect and the hook text is nowhere in the article, it was an uncited and faulty hook), and Maroon Creek Bridge (see the talk page, the factual error in the article has still not been corrected, the source says the bridge is a "relic", nothing whatsoever about "only significant", which is made up, since there are plenty of other remnants of the rail there). Can we also have a record of faulty hooks or plagiarism that were not removed but should have been? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Per the above, how about a sister page, Wikipedia:Did you know/Mainpage disputed? With three in one week that I'm aware of, I suggest that a page listing faulty hooks that ran is needed:
Since DYK has no equivalent of FAR or GAR, we should have a means of tracking the promotion of faulty hooks to the mainpage. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Would it be helpful to include here the number of DYKs that are (a) submitted and (b) posted on the main page? Also, it is not clear whether all the DYKs are checked or not, or whether those listed here are from a sample of an unknown number that were checked (with another unknown number not checked)? Carcharoth ( talk) 14:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Noting here that I've mentioned this page in this discussion: User talk:Moonriddengirl#Studies on variance in paraphrasing standards. As Nikkimaria notes above, she is the one mostly adding to this page, so I'm not so sure this archive is a good example of the sort of thing I'm looking for. I'm really looking for an archive built up over months where the standards applied by a range of different editors can be considered for variance (there will always be some variance, but I would hope any glaring inconsistencies would be noticed). Carcharoth ( talk) 15:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The conclusion I'm coming to (this is more broadly about those that work at CCI, not here) is that those who raise close paraphrasing concerns should have the confidence in their own writing to be able to both admit to and correct examples of borderline close paraphrasing in their own writing, and be able to respond to claims about their own writing, and do so gracefully and with clear explanations. That would point to an ability beyond just identifying and correcting problems, but being able to explain the underlying problem and show where to go from there. That ability to explain problems and not just identify them is rare, but is what is needed. I'm guessing New Page Patrollers may not be great at that either. BTW, are you aware that the WMF is rolling out a New Pages triage system somewhere? Have a look at Wikipedia:New Page Triage and its talk page. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
How about a place to remember bad hooks that made it to the main page? Then sat there forever after being reported as errors until someone outside of the DYK community took care of it?
People are forbidden to post about bad hooks on the main page anywhere in DYK, and then the main page errors are just ignored. How about the editors who put them there take some responsibility for fixing them?
You could just have a bot fill a notice on the main DYK page every time that section opens on the main page errors reports. You could also have editors with minimal background in the sciences read science hooks for errors. Or have editors read their own articles, and, if the article had linked both geological era and epoch, it would have been caught.
-- 2600:380:B11D:F3AD:1B8A:4BC4:8D90:5E81 ( talk) 14:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Anyone? Things get listed here, but nothing, absolutely nothing is done about them, their trends, the recurring issues etc. This is just another arcane and bureaucratic aspect of an already overloaded process. Suggest this is deprecated unless someone can provide suitable evidence for its purpose. The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I've now marked this page as deprecated and for retention only as part of historical interest. Too many hooks haven't been reported, there has been no evidence that this page serves any purpose, and nothing is to be gained by pretending it's in use. The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
This page is helpful, but can it be somehow expanded to include the faulty hooks that ran nonetheless on the mainpage? Those include last week's stab wound (the hook is incorrect and the hook text is nowhere in the article, it was an uncited and faulty hook), and Maroon Creek Bridge (see the talk page, the factual error in the article has still not been corrected, the source says the bridge is a "relic", nothing whatsoever about "only significant", which is made up, since there are plenty of other remnants of the rail there). Can we also have a record of faulty hooks or plagiarism that were not removed but should have been? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Per the above, how about a sister page, Wikipedia:Did you know/Mainpage disputed? With three in one week that I'm aware of, I suggest that a page listing faulty hooks that ran is needed:
Since DYK has no equivalent of FAR or GAR, we should have a means of tracking the promotion of faulty hooks to the mainpage. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Would it be helpful to include here the number of DYKs that are (a) submitted and (b) posted on the main page? Also, it is not clear whether all the DYKs are checked or not, or whether those listed here are from a sample of an unknown number that were checked (with another unknown number not checked)? Carcharoth ( talk) 14:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Noting here that I've mentioned this page in this discussion: User talk:Moonriddengirl#Studies on variance in paraphrasing standards. As Nikkimaria notes above, she is the one mostly adding to this page, so I'm not so sure this archive is a good example of the sort of thing I'm looking for. I'm really looking for an archive built up over months where the standards applied by a range of different editors can be considered for variance (there will always be some variance, but I would hope any glaring inconsistencies would be noticed). Carcharoth ( talk) 15:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The conclusion I'm coming to (this is more broadly about those that work at CCI, not here) is that those who raise close paraphrasing concerns should have the confidence in their own writing to be able to both admit to and correct examples of borderline close paraphrasing in their own writing, and be able to respond to claims about their own writing, and do so gracefully and with clear explanations. That would point to an ability beyond just identifying and correcting problems, but being able to explain the underlying problem and show where to go from there. That ability to explain problems and not just identify them is rare, but is what is needed. I'm guessing New Page Patrollers may not be great at that either. BTW, are you aware that the WMF is rolling out a New Pages triage system somewhere? Have a look at Wikipedia:New Page Triage and its talk page. Carcharoth ( talk) 15:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
How about a place to remember bad hooks that made it to the main page? Then sat there forever after being reported as errors until someone outside of the DYK community took care of it?
People are forbidden to post about bad hooks on the main page anywhere in DYK, and then the main page errors are just ignored. How about the editors who put them there take some responsibility for fixing them?
You could just have a bot fill a notice on the main DYK page every time that section opens on the main page errors reports. You could also have editors with minimal background in the sciences read science hooks for errors. Or have editors read their own articles, and, if the article had linked both geological era and epoch, it would have been caught.
-- 2600:380:B11D:F3AD:1B8A:4BC4:8D90:5E81 ( talk) 14:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Anyone? Things get listed here, but nothing, absolutely nothing is done about them, their trends, the recurring issues etc. This is just another arcane and bureaucratic aspect of an already overloaded process. Suggest this is deprecated unless someone can provide suitable evidence for its purpose. The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I've now marked this page as deprecated and for retention only as part of historical interest. Too many hooks haven't been reported, there has been no evidence that this page serves any purpose, and nothing is to be gained by pretending it's in use. The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)