Wikipedia:A proposal to swap the Main Page positions of WP:ITN and WP:DYK

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


A proposal to swap the Main Page positions of WP:ITN and WP:DYK[edit]

Example layout (not created by initiator of proposal and here purely for informative purposes)

Proposal[edit]

Proposal:The position of the the Wikipedia:Did You Know (WP:DYK) section and Wikipedia:In The News (WP:ITN) section should be swapped around, so that DYK, and not ITN, should appear at the top of the Wikipedia:Main Page.

Rationale for change[edit]

Short version[edit]

The top of the Main Page is the part that most people read first (and often the only part, on smaller screens), and therefore the content that is most benefit to readers and the 'pedia deserves to be at the top of the Main Page.

The ITN section's selection process is currently arbitrary, little understood and poorly participated in. This leads to infrequent updates, and many additions are ultimately of low quality or value, both in terms of either informing readers, or securing article updates. It is also frequently accused of showing bias and/or ignoring important topics, due to the inherent US bias in editors and readers. It is dubious as to whether ITN is attracting or motivating new editors to the pedia at all.

The DYK section however, is a mature, well understood, and frequently updated. Despite inherent US bias in readers and editors, this is frequently not even evident in what gets displayed in the section, and the wide variety of topics always has interest value to all readers. It is a proven and guaranteed way of both securing updates to articles, and giving value to readers. It is of proven value to the pedia in terms of new editor motivation and retention.

Therefore, unless or until the processes and procedures behind ITN are properly reformed, DYK has a better claim to the top position on the Main Page than ITN.

Long version[edit]

I've participated in ITN on and off for a few months now, and frankly, a lot of things about it are totally odd, and in my view, DYK, which I have also used pretty much constantly for months, is superior in nearly every respect. Namely:

  • Interest value - The criteria as to whether an item qualifies for listing on ITN are just impossible to understand, and pretty much runs on arbitrary discussion. I think the most obviously bad decision I have ever seen is that Africa's population breaching 1 billion is not a significant event of international interest, but there are frequent other examples. The purpose of the section and consequently the criteria for selection is so disputed, with various people with their own ideas and agendas as to what the purpose of ITN is (not helped by the vague wording of the actual instructions), that the section just regularly reverts to type - a boring treadmill of death, politics, and routine space flights. DYK on the other hand, has a wide range of topics and will always interest many readers.
  • Regularity of updates and relevance of material - Every 6 hours the whole DYK section is refreshed. ITN however is random, and there have often been very long periods between updates, even though there is now a counter. This doesn't help though because the flawed nature of the ITN selection process causes a perennial low level of interest. Items with little or no support or opposition are now put up simply because nobody was interested in discussing it either way. DYK however has no end of editors suggesting items. Even the name of ITN - 'In the News', causes untold problems especially for new entrants, because for various reasons, this isn't actually the purpose of the section. In addition, quite often because of the random way it is updated, the image used on the ITN section doesn't even correspond to the top item on ITN. This is just bizarre, and again, never happens on DYK.
  • Editor motivation and retention - the arbitrary and unpredictable nature of the ITN discussion process is guaranteed to put off new contributors. I doubt that many first time suggesters of ITN listings ever return, whereas the opposite is probably true of DYK. Editors who suggest something for DYK that cannot go up are given an easy to understand explanation as to why. Unsuccessful ITN suggesters either have to simply stick around to figure out how ITN works (not an easy task, if possible at all), or more usually, they just leave. It is no surprise then to see that for the most part, the majority of nominations come from the same few people time and again (with the same few people then discussing them). We even have a bizarre situation where some of the admins who update the main page with successful candidates, don't even care whether the suggester who has somehow managed to get through this process, gets any credit. This is just bizarre, and of course never happens at DYK, because the obvious value for editor retention and motivation of giving credit is recognised and well established at DYK.
  • Benefit to the pedia. One of the dumbest things about ITN is that it often never even results in an updated article - people simply list a few sources on the suggestion page, and then expect others to update the article (and quite often, this doesn't happen and the item is forgotten). For updated articles, it makes absolutely no difference whether someone suggests an article with the (pretty small) minimum update, or a near GA quality complete article. DYK however has better standards - you know for a fact every listing has been the result of a new article over 1,500 words long, or a 5 times expansion of an existing article, and the better the work, the more likelihood of a hook, so you know for a fact that a more successful DYK section benefits the pedia. The same cannot be said for ITN. The Togo bus attack item just spent a good few days on the Main Page at ITN (automatically qualifies in the aforementioned 'death' treadmill type of listing), yet it is still full of factual holes and still a pretty poor article overall, both in style and substance. I am dubious as to whether it being listed on ITN garnered more edits than would have happened anyway, or even whether readers went away satisfied after reading the item suggested to them from the Main Page. On DYK however, the highlighted articles will always benefit from the extra editor attention and subsequent improvement.
  • Bad process - ITN selection discussions normally get so few participants, that even though the selection is supposed to be based on consensus, it is the only place on Wikipedia where admins can both participate in the discussion, and call the consensus. Interest and participation in process aspects of ITN is so low, it is hard to even gauge what many people even think of such obvious bad practices. Items are often fluidly listed and removed from the ITN section, but this never happens on DYK, the discussion process and the role of admins is clearly defined. Items on ITN often go up with barely three people supporting, yet conversely, just three or four opposes is enough to stop the listing of more widely discussed items, even if they get a 2:1 majority support. This is the process for selection of items that are supposedly of interest to thousands of readers, yet a rapid 2:1 support is not sufficient consensus. This is never going to ensure ITN items are of consistent quality, and it will only perpetuate the low level of interest in the selection process, and the listing of items nobody cares about in the first place. DYK has a far more logical and mature process, with the resulting effect of consistency. Every item listed on DYK interested someone enough to write a decent article or a large update, which is inherently built in to the process. ITN selection builds nothing into its own processes except random wikipolitics and/or apathy.
  • Quality of the debates - The low participation in ITN selection discussions only magnifies the issue that much of the discussion that does happen is just of very poor quality. Pro and con arguments in ITN discussions are often totally arbitrary and are often simply expressions of blatant POV. Accusations of pro-US bias or anti-US bias are rampant, because nobody has a clue how to square that circle for ITN. Arguments are often of such stellar intellectual weight as 'who cares'. More often than not, discussions resemble pointless and lame tit for tat sessions where someone will oppose one item because another didn't go up, rather than an actual discussion of the merits or value of the item in question. Other discussions often resemble useless comparisons of apples and oranges, in a vain attempt to establish whether a prior precedent has been set, or the reverse, to try and compare apples to oranges to hold off setting a perceived bad precedent. There are supposedly established guidelines for what kinds of routine events have had support in the past, but opposition votes which ignore these are also apparently counted as legitimate opposition. DYK long ago separated process from purpose, with obvious benefits, whereas at ITN they are inextricably linked, with bad consequences all round.
  • The tar pit effect The combined effect of low participation and low quality discussion has a final consequence which has no business being part of a major Main Page feature. While most ITN selection debates gather little input, any discussion that is even remotely large and contentious (i.e. two or three people oppose, and others rightly question their views), it just gets bogged down and/or ignored until it is ultimately irrelevant as to whether the potential ITN item has support or not, either by weight of numbers or quality of argument, because it is no longer current (and in such cases, there is still nothing like what you would call a 'large' discussion in Wikipedia terms). The Ted Kennedy selection discussion was totally unusual in garnering wide interest, and unsurprisingly, it came up with a consensus which went against normal ITN practice that otherwise occurs there everyday (and I don't see either position as wrong - it is more the fact that the low quality state of the ITN process is what caused it in the first place). The selection process at DYK by contrast is simple, well known, and well established. Because of that, it never fails to produce a high quality update for the main page.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]

  1. MickMacNee (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC) (as proposer).[reply]
  2. I agree, this seems like it make a lot more sense from the "we're an encyclopedia" standpoint, beyond everything said above. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Somewhat support. ITN makes Wikipedia focus too much on current event articles, and DYK is generally a much more positive system. On the other hand, ITN does help readers find articles related to news, and those articles often have long names that are hard to guess. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agreed. WP:NOTNEWS. Although I wouldn't propose removing the section altogether, it's a great little feature that can give users and visitors some detailed background information on current events. It holds the same novelty value as DYK but should not be in such a position of prominence. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 03:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. If for no other reason than the 'benefit to the 'pedia' rationale. I wasn't even aware of DYK when I did most of my article-creating, it should be promoted more aggressively to encourage contributors to expand and create well referenced articles. —what a crazy random happenstance 03:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Why not? If anything else, a little change wouldn't hurt and would spice things up. –MuZemike 04:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Whilst I find ITN useful myself, I think new people rely on the wikipedia mainpage for their daily news update. DYK is a more entrenched part of the process of expanding wikipedia is well-written encyclopediatic material. The swap might encourage more users to write well-referenced articles, thus expanding the scope of the encyclopedia. At least the swap could be tested for say 6 months, then evaluted. --Soman (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Agreed; the vast majority of casual users I know of enjoy Wikipedia for lack of a better word, trivia. DYK is a huge asset to both our casual readers to see interesting new articles, and to editors looking for new articles to expand upon. ITN is inherently more popular due to its being topical; Oppose#5's concern that topics featured in ITN are more relevant is due to the fact that they are on peoples minds, even if they were not on the front page they would be getting massive amounts of views. As for the opposition that the main page is currently arranged with polished on left, and current/past on the right, this wouldn't dissorganize the main page, just change it to top/bottom vs left/right. NeilHynes (Talk) 12:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We have color-coded vertical columns, not horizontal rows. —David Levy 12:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. My first inclination when I heard the topic idea was to oppose because I thought ITN was more vital to presenting Wikipedia as a dynamic, ever changing entity. However after reading the nom's very thorough rational and looking more closely at the ITN process, it does seem that DYK fulfills that role in a better capacity even if the target articles are not current news events. ITN shouldn't be eliminated from the main page but I can see more net value in more prominently featuring DYK. AgneCheese/Wine 14:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. My rather simplistic view? Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia first, and a news source "somewhere" after that. There are plenty of places people can visit for news, if that's what they want. Parrot of Doom 16:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia isn't a news source, which is precisely why we need to address the problem of ITN being mistaken for a news ticker. Pushing it lower on the page won't accomplish that. —David Levy 19:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. A very sound proposal and supporting rationale. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. As we're an encyclopedia, we shouldn't have a major focus on news, so giving a more prominent place to DYK would be more in line with our goals. Placement below today's featured article should be at least partially above the fold on most browsers, so people won't have trouble finding it. Nyttend (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Excellent proposal and well-explained rationale. Great idea. Cirt (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. ITN is much too slow-moving, & does not promote the project as well as DYK. Johnbod (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong support This is what we are doing at wikipedia: writing an encyclopedia. We're not journalists. This would bring more watchers to DYK to increase the quality of articles, also. Sometimes they're plagiarized, in spite of supposed checking of this. Spell-check wouldn't hurt. Reading them out loud once to capture the most offensive and common grammatical errors, would be nice also. But, I don't get my news from wikipedia. If I want a news article, I enter something in the search box and find it. DYK, however, is a collection of what makes writing an encyclopedia fun: the newest and those articles that some editor, somewhere is devoted to. It showcases what we do, and who we are. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 05:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ITN (despite the name) is not a new sources, that's what Wikinews is for. It's a showcase of content of good quality that documents a current event. Where it differs from WN and other news sources is that it deals with the event in context, as an encyclopaedia should. It's also of more immediate interest to readers, who may have heard of a story and want to know more of it. This is what Wikipedia excels at. It's just a shame that this has deteriorated into a DYK v ITN. HJMitchell You rang? 10:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the proposal shows anything, it is that people apparently do think it is a news service, just a very slow one. Whether it is a news service, or a supposedly excellent offering of in context current events articles, it is not doing a good job either way. I have no idea how you think its giving valuable context, there is surely no reader that doesn't already know the Haiti Earthquake caused 'widespread damage' or destroyed the presidential palace. Anything remotely detailed it does serve up that people didn't widely know already, like the map entry, is greeted by the general masses with a 'why the hell is that on the front page news section?'. It is not routinely serving up content of wide interest, because 'why isn't this widely know event on the front page' is probably the most common complaint. The whole 'people are lazy and that's why the link to Haiti Earthquake needs to be at the top', and general assumptions that everybody loading the main page is looking for the Haiti Earthquake, as if they hadn't seen it there at all in the last 48 hours, is just really sad to see tbh, and if true, could be achieved with a layout a hundred times better than the current one, where the Togo bus ambush has only just been shuffled off of the bottom a week after the event, and in the same time, hundreds of DYKs have been posted. MickMacNee (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. Surely most people who come to an encyclopaedia are more interested in articles about well documented news items which often provide far greater depth and context than even some of the major broadsheet newspapers than they are in trivia (not meant slightly at all- I like DYK!). As for "arbitrary, little understood and poorly participated in", ITN is certainly not arbitrary (though news is)- it's a showcase for articles related to current news items which have been sufficiently updated- unlike DYK, it's not a simple pass/fail, it's a discussion in which editors who manage to get their heads round the "little understood" process weigh up the merits of the story and the article. Admins at ITN are not necessarily calling consensus- it's often clear one way or the other- it just happens that the sysop right is required to edit the template. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. HJMitchell You rang? 09:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 2010 Haiti earthquake. Clear enough? ITN process is not perfect and would benefit from a wider participation but this is not a reason why we should introduce any change to the Main page. --Tone 10:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Regularity of updates and relevance of material. Certain sections of the Main Page are updated daily. Others every six or eight hours. The regularity of updates has no importance for a section's position as each work in different ways. Editor motivation and retention. "Unsuccessful ITN suggesters either have to simply stick around to figure out how ITN works (not an easy task, if possible at all), or more usually, they just leave".[citation needed] for this very general statement, everybody even those who come again and again have to start somewhere. If someone is interested enough they return regularly. Some might prefer to go elsewhere on a regular basis, some might not. That's the same with every component of Wikipedia. Benefit to the pedia. Not all people expect others to do the work as implied above. That again is a very general statement. How else do any articles end up on the Main Page at all if this is what everyone expects? Would be inclined to disagree with support #4 (WP:NOTNEWS). Wikipedia is not news anyway. ITN is not news. If ITN was simply news it would not exist in the first place in which case why are we here? --candle•wicke 10:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I've not once participated at ITN, and am a regular at DYK. My comments are twofold: I read ITN more than DYK even though I write for DYK. I like ITN's location. Second, assuming all your complaints are true, then there is a much more important task to be undertaken: reform of the ITN process, including perhaps its title. Switching spots on the main page? Not so much. I applaud you for articulating the concerns, and would happily participate in a discussion of how to get ITN working better (taking the concerns expressed above at face value - i realise there will other ITN editors who don't agree). hamiltonstone (talk) 10:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This proposal is a beautiful example of everything that's rotten with the thinking and Process at DYK. I'm sure the DYK wonks would love to have the 1.1 million hits/day that ITN had for its story on swine influenza, or even the 15.5k hits/day that the median ITN story gets on the day of posting. But it simply isn't going to get them, no matter where it is on the Main Page, all the time it is concentrated on criteria which are of absolutely no interest or importance to our readers. Physchim62 (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "wonks", huh? That's constructive. Perhaps we should give up all this encyclopaedia nonsense and become a porn site, think of all the hits we'd get then. —what a crazy random happenstance 12:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, when a piece about a Japanese pink film ("soft" porn) was featured on DYK (25 September 2009), it got absolutely no hits at all! So I don't think the porn-site idea is going to work... Physchim62 (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    stats.grok.se was down on several days in September, including the 25th. See this. –Howard the Duck 13:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize this was a "our project is better than yours" discussion. Can we please stay on topic instead of creating unnecessary drama here? ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 17:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I agree that there is a problem and thoroughly disagree that this is a solution. The ITN section is badly in need of reform (and a new name!), but lowering it on the main page is not a viable alternative to actually improving it. We must hold all of our main page content to a high standard, not sweep it "below the fold" if it doesn't.
    The current main page columns are thematic in nature (polished and new/improved articles on the left; current/past events on the right), and this proposal would replace that logical layout with something arbitrary in nature.
    Incidentally, I suggest that the above proposal be reworded, as I see no need to twice mention "the inherent US bias in editors and readers" (or "readers and editors"). Perhaps the intended connotation was "systemic disproportion of US readers and editors," which is accurate (but can be extended to native English speakers in general). There has been as much allegation of anti-US bias in the selection of items (users opposing US-related items in an attempt to compensate for the perceived US bias), so I don't believe that it's fair to take either view for granted in a formal proposal. —David Levy 10:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. DYK, with loads of new content coming in regularly, needs the W-I-D-E-R column on MainPage, which is the left column right now. If you want to hide ITN, consider moving the Selected Anniversaries up. --PFHLai (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a very valid concern, and it kind of throws a spanner into the works of this proposal if it isn't addressed. We could equalise the width of the two columns, though this would probably mean we also need to shorten the featured article extract and have slightly fewer DYK facts cycling slightly faster, perhaps? —what a crazy random happenstance 12:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Alternatively, we could move DYK down to below POTD, where I could have all the space it wants for all those articles which happen to meet its artificial and arbitrary criteria. That way, we could move OTD across and use the space gained for an obituaries section. I might formally propose that, if I get round to it. Physchim62 (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Having spoken to some Wikipedia readers (as opposed to editors) they seem to appreciate the service provided by ITN more than that provided by DYK. They liked the fact that Wikipedia synthesises almost all reliable sources about a topic to provide a single, comprehensive source. I think that this is one of the areas that Wikipedia excels at and that we should try to promote this aspect of our work. On the other hand, whilst DYK can be interesting it's facts often tend to the obscure (take a look at some of the recent listings for readily available examples) and could often be renamed YDK (You Didn't Know..), but it does good work in highlighting recently created articles. I have participated in both ITN and DYK (I have had 46 DYKs and 80 ITNs) and believe that both systems are useful to the the project but I think that the existing layout best suits the needs of our readers - Dumelow (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Far too often, DYK hsould really be DYRWTK: "Did you really want to know..." This is a fault of the complete lack of any selection procedure which takes our readers into account. As a result, the DYK pieces which are actually interesting (of which there are several each day) get lost among the insignificant, or simply get replaced before most people have had a chance to read them. It is simply not true that DYK's low readership figures are due to it's place on the Main Page: POTD regularly gets 10k hits on the featured picture, let alone all those readers who just look at the image without clicking. Physchim62 (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe DYK regularly beats 10k if you add all 8x4 articles for a given day, which I believe is a more relevant statistic. Those 32 articles occupy about the same Main Page space as one POTD. Art LaPella (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at hits for the four images that were on the Main Page for DYK on January 13 (WP:DYKA). They had 4.0k + 2.4k + 2.9k + 7.0k = 17.3k hits in total. Ucucha 15:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. As an admin who has worked extensively on both DYK and ITN, I am reasonably familiar with inner workings and behind-the-scene politics of both projects, and I find this proposal flawed so badly, and, in particular, seemingly written without any proper understanding of how DYK works, that I can refute almost every point made in the proposal, but I will give just some examples: 1) "The selection process at DYK by contrast is simple, well known, and well established." - Well established, maybe, because more people have worked on and refined the DYK rules for a longer time, but it has resulted in a painfully long, obscure, inflexible, creep-ish list of rules. Would you please read Wikipedia:Did you know/Additional rules? It used to be called "unwritten rules", adding the mysterious aura of esotericism to the whole instruction thing, thankfully it has been renamed. On the other hand, ITN regulars judge candidates as they come, usually on a case-by-case basis, and while it may seem random, amateurish, or unpredictable to you, at least ITN certainly does not have that many rules, and certainly much simpler than DYK. 2) "Because of that, it never fails to produce a high quality update for the main page." - Hmm, I am not too sure about that. I myself have been criticized for featuring inadequately updated DYK articles in past, and DYK does get not-so-infrequent complaints on WP:ERRORS and Talk:Main Page. And because it is updated so fast, problems are often not dealt with, and people simply forget the errors contained in the articles. On the other hand, ITN items are featured for a much longer time, as you mentioned yourself, and that gives us more time to fix errors and deal with problems. I won't pretend ITN has been always successful in that, but the nature of current events means that more people are interested in ITN items, such as the one about an earthquake just happened a couple of days ago, and the sheer number of readers tend to spot and fix errors fairly quickly. In addition, unlike ITN, DYK regularly features items that can be seen as trivial, odd, and sometimes even "risqué", such as a BDSM porn studio (hook: ...that the San Francisco Armory (pictured), a National Guard stronghold during the "Bloody Thursday" events of 1934, is now used as a BDSM porn studio?"), or a royal torture device (hook: "... that the Apega of Nabis was an ancient torture device similar to the iron maiden, invented by King Nabis of Sparta (pictured on coin)?"), or some obscure Japanese fetish erotica (hook: "... that in the 1977 pink film Fairy in a Cage, according to actress Naomi Tani, her upside-down torture scenes were not faked with suspension braces, in order to show tension in her thigh muscles?"). Do you really want to have such items displayed prominently on Main Page? One of the regular DYK participants has complained that "we get labelled as eccentrics for free already." I am not surprised at that. 3) "Unsuccessful ITN suggesters either have to simply stick around to figure out how ITN works (not an easy task, if possible at all), or more usually, they just leave.": So you are saying because the ITN is a more difficult process than other sections on Main Page, we should move it down? Have you ever tried to go through FA evaluation process? By your logic, we should perhaps move FA down to the lowest bottom. 4) "We even have a bizarre situation where some of the admins who update the main page with successful candidates, don't even care whether the suggester who has somehow managed to get through this process, gets any credit.": What credit are you talking about? An ITN notice is not a some kind of trophy, it is just a simple notification, as User:David Levy has explained eloquently at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Contributions. If someone thinks it is a trophy, thrilled and enjoys it so much, they can copy/paste the notice template on their own talk pages, and there is nothing to prevent that. The DYK is prompt at giving out the notices because its process is automated. Do you know what happens when the DYKbot ceases to function? 5) "the image used on the ITN section doesn't even correspond to the top item on ITN.": Quite a number of FA summaries that appeared on Main Page did not have any image at all. At least ITN always has one, unless the image is accidentally removed by some inexperienced admin. 6) "One of the dumbest things about ITN is that it often never even results in an updated article - people simply list a few sources on the suggestion page, and then expect others to update the article (and quite often, this doesn't happen and the item is forgotten).": No, it is not "quite often". It does happen, but majority of successful candidates do get updated and featured. Anyway, have you checked out how many DYK candidates are rejected? Well, I can go on and on, but I will just stop here. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, please carry on! (on the talk page if necessary). Physchim62 (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, no. I already spent too much time responding to this "proposal". --BorgQueen (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Bravo! That was quite an enjoyable read! :-O --candle•wicke 13:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ive replied on the talk page using all of my meagre and unworthy experience of WP/ITN/DYK, and I'm ready for more if you have it, your Queen-ness. MickMacNee (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That should be a featured article. —  Cargoking  talk  18:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. This has the potential to become a DYK vs ITN debate, which has all the chance of reaching a successful conclusion as a debate if scotch or champagne is a better libation; personal preferences rule. ITN needs twenty or so items a week; DYK needs 32 each and every day- DYK is backlogged now, it would absolutely collapse in the ITN process. The ITN items are interesting to a broader audience, and as such, have the place of prominence. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. You seem to be missing the point of the Main Page. It does not exist to encourage editors. It exists as a showcase of our work to readers, in all areas. This includes both quality (TFA, TFP), timeliness (ITN, OTD) and breadth (DYK). The quality of ITN articles is already a criteria for inclusion, and overall I think they are generally of higher quality that DYK articles (though DYK is undoubtedly more consistent). Readers are FAR more interested in the items on ITN than DYK, therefore it is better to have ITN above the fold and DYK below. Modest Genius talk 14:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. As per BorgQueen -- Ashish-g55 15:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. As PFHLai said and my example layout shows, this would be detrimental to the layout of the Main Page in its current form. If this is addressed, no opinion, because I don't think I can really consider this objectively as a DYK admin. Ucucha 15:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Aside from the concerns regarding the layout of the page itself and DYK's needs for a wider section, I feel that the content on ITN tends to be more eye-catching than DYK (with no offense to the DYK players). The content there will be of interest for a longer period of time and is deserving of a prominent location for the duration that it has, unlike DYK which will change so frequently that it may even be difficult to keep up with on the main page as a new viewer. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Per BorgQueen. The two projects are different; IMHO trying to compare them and deciding which is the better one is not possible. There are some "DYK sucks/ITN sucks" comments here, but the measurements used to judge the success of an entry in one project can't be used in the other. ITN features articles on topics that the general public is currently interested in, so they should be in a place where they can easily see and access them. DYK is used to show our new content, much like a "what's new" section. That is for the readers who are just browsing through the content here. The current arrangement on the main page serves this purpose well as far as I can see. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 17:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not comparing their purpose to simply decide which one is better, I am comparing what state of operation they are currently in now and therefore at this point in the evolution of Wikipedia, which one of them currently has a better claim to the higher position. As we speak, no story has been added to ITN in 29 hours, the candidate page looks the same as it always does - not many suggestions and the same tiny number of participants, and as usual many suggestions have simply been derailed and tar-pitted by one or two POV opinions that have absolutely nothing to do with any of the documentation that supposedly explains how the process brings new content to the Main Page. In that same time, 40 entries have been displayed on DYK. MickMacNee (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The "inherent US bias" (mentioned twice in your proposal) is to blame, right? —David Levy 19:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that its relevant to this particular comment, but its clear you are fishing for some sort of comment anway, so to clarify - I never said there was an inherent bias problem with ITN, I said that arguments over alleged bias are an example of one of the many things that dog ITN (and get extended even into the tit for tat lameness too), but it is something that you never hear of, and is barely evident in, DYK, despite the fact we unarguably do have more US editors. Now, either go fish somewhere else, or start a discussion on the talk page if something is still bothering you about the proposal. MickMacNee (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fishing for nothing. I'm not referring to what you wrote about the arguments, which is accurate (and needs to be addressed). I'm referring to the two matter-of-fact mentions of the "inherent US bias" (your exact words) earlier in the proposal. Did you forget that you wrote that? —David Levy 20:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Which I preceded with "It is also frequently accused of...". MickMacNee (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You wrote "It is also frequently accused of showing bias and/or ignoring important topics, due to the inherent US bias in editors and readers." That can be interpreted two ways (with the claim of inherent US bias attributed either to you or to the unspecified parties), but in referring to the DYK section, you began a sentence with "Despite inherent US bias in readers and editors" (a matter-of-fact claim without qualification). —David Levy 21:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per all above. —  Cargoking  talk  18:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per all above. Quite frankly, I feel MickMacNee created this solely because of a recent bad experience he had at ITN (namely a suggestion of his didn't make ITN). ~DC Talk To Me 20:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It was just the catalyst tbh. Everything mentioned above comes from months if not nearly a year of watching and participating at both ITN and DYK, and many of the actual specific examples are from months ago. Frankly, if you think I would write all of the above just because of one failed nomination, you must think I am an absolute nutter, which I am not before anyone says otherwise. MickMacNee (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Infact, that most recent dispute could almost be the perfect template of what's wrong with all of the longer debates at ITN, you will find the poor elements in that specific debate - nonsense/arbitrary/ignorant/insulting arguments, pro-anti US crap, tit for tat arguments, ignoring of /R, admin reversal, death by tar pit, and everything else that didn't really have a grounding in any of the current documentation, were also present in at least one debate a week going back months. The shorter ones are not much better, but as described, they have their own issues too. A one off observation, this proposal is most definitely not. MickMacNee (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to admit, submitting candidates at ITN can be frustrating (see Ted Kennedy and the BCS Championship). The process could use some changes/clarifications, but that's not a reason to swap sections. If you have ideas on how to fix ITN, feel free to bring them up on the talkpage ~DC Talk To Me 21:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd actually think an RFC about ITN would be a good idea too. It would be nice to solicit opinions from those who don't usually get involved with ITN on how to fix it. ~DC Talk To Me 21:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose A sizable part of the proposal seems to be that the system for selecting DYKs is better than the process for selecting ITN items. Maybe so but that's is irrelevant in deciding whether ITN should feature more prominently that DYK on the MainPage. The reason given (i.e. the regularity of updates) is merely a function of the subject material: we can't make news happen at regular intervals, we have to wait for it, but it does happen at frequent intervals rest assured. For me, the best thing about DYKs and ITN is the breadth of articles that they show. The showcase Wikipedia and can invite participation. Any given ITN or DYK will link to tangental topics of all ages, sizes, quality and topics. However, DYKs do so through quirky factoids whereas ITN does so through items that are immediately relevant. I believe the latter is more likely to invite participation - by it's nature ITN demonstrates that Wikipedia is a "living" encyclopedia - whereas DYK is a more demonstration of the (quirky and nerdy) content of Wikipedia and less of an invitation to participate. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Adds: that the selection process for ITN would pass over more "newsworthy" items really isn't a problem. We are an encyclopedia, it is not our purpose to present the "news". Rather, ITN it merely a good way to showcase the 'pedia, demonstrate that it is "alive" and growing, and to invite participation. (And is better IMHO at doing that than DYK.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. If a seldom visitor visits Wikipedia's Main Page, they more often than not do so in response to something that is currently discussed somewhere and in most cases, this is the news. So when they come here, they want to have easy access to that information and I think it's much easier to spot it on the right than at the bottom. I love DYK and I work there but I simply don't think it needs the same prominent spot. People who read DYK articles, do not come here for newsworthy articles and as such will not mind that it's below the featured article. Also, it makes the layout showcase featured and new contributions on the left with content relevant to the day in question on the right, separating the Main Page into a general-stuff part (left) and a current-stuff part (right) which I think is a good distinction. Regards SoWhy 22:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I am reasonably familiar with the DYK process, having contributed 4 DYKs and written hooks for others, and not familiar at all with the ITN process. That said, I still believe ITN should be kept in its current location, more prominent than DYK's location, because ITN items are more likely to be of general interest and clear importance, while DYK items are often of much less interest or importance. If the ITN process needs reform, it should be reformed, but that does not mean ITN needs to be moved. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Per PFHLai, lefthand column is wider and DYK needs that. Also, the DYK column is often quite long and it would be difficult to get it to match up with the FA length without shortening it which would mean less promotions and all kinds of difficulties for DYK reviewers. Also, promoting DYK to the top of the page means the entire top of the page is devoted to articles, which I'm not convinced will be good for balance. Gatoclass (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Per the wonderfully concise rationale. If I go to the Main Page at all (I usually go straight to my watchlist), as often as not it's to look for coverage of a current news item. DYK sometimes catches my eye, but I wouldn't click on it more often if it was at the top. Scolaire (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The point being, is it currently doing a good job of that given the space and position it is allowed? When you do happen to click on the Main Page, do you not infact get ever so slightly irritated when there has been no update in nearly 40 hours because of how the ITN selection process is so horrendously broken? MickMacNee (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Or do readers simply skip over the DYK section because they looked at it once and found that most of the hooks were utterly banal? Cut's both ways, you know! Physchim62 (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Says you. And only you mind. MickMacNee (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess it's a good idea for both of you to stop bashing either ITN or DYK at every opportunity you get. Ucucha 13:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, to clarify for the millionth time, my only issue is with how it works right now, I have absolutely nothing against an ITN section in principle (although clearly people still think its a news service), if it selected items in a proper, consistent and regular manner. MickMacNee (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose People tend to care more about news, therefore I see no reason in putting it in the lower part. Blodance (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose: ITN is a major driver of current affairs article-writing, and should have a greater prominience for that reason. DYK is good too, but does not need to catch the eye as urgently. -- The Anome (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral[edit]

  1. We should probably make way for content such as WP:GA, WP:FL and WP:FS. –Howard the Duck 11:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weakly oppose on layout grounds (the more encyclopedic on the left, the more news-ey on the right), but support on novelty grounds. net neutral but keeep me posted :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, then we're just changing that into the more encyclopedic at the top and the more news-ey at the bottom. ;) Ucucha 18:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ITN isn't very good, but we should fix it instead of switching it with DYK. Make it more like DYK, with minimum requirements. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What sort of minimum requirements would you like to see that are not there at the moment? Physchim62 (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I might be mistaken, but I interpreted Peregrine Fisher's comment to mean that the requirements should be relaxed and kept to a minimum. —David Levy 19:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone forgets ITN articles are not there yet most of the time where as DYK already has good articles in bulk to work with. Min. requirements would mean 20 news items a day without articles are going through and actual news that should be there would just circle out. Then you can argue, well the important news will stay up rest will circle... then who will decide what is important? what is good? and you will be back where you started. -- Ashish-g55 20:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Please direct discussion of the proposal to the talk page.


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:A_proposal_to_swap_the_Main_Page_positions_of_WP:ITN_and_WP:DYK&oldid=1142659113"