>Spot on description, Sarah, of why not to nominate an article at DYK, "...
>drama, rude people, too "complex" of a process >for something so simple". Yup,
>DYK can be (is) dysfunctional and the DYK project doesn't take criticism well.
As an admin who was heavily involved with DYK in the past but now does little
regularly beyond the requisite QPQ review when I nominate one of my own
articles, I’m saddened that this turnabout in our reputation has happened.
It used to be that we were known as among the nicest group of admins at
Wikipedia. I wonder if that has something to do with the gradual automation of
the DYK process—when I was more regularly involved, there were no separate
templates for nominations and we did basically everything manually, all the way
to filling queues and updating the main page. We did a lot more of the work
ourselves, and I wonder if that actually made us more tolerant of other
people’s faults since we lived with the awareness of how easily we could screw
things up ourselves and the consequences of doing so.
The rules, more complex than they used to be I admit, came out of some
instances where certain users, not part of the DYK process, made rude,
dismissive but ultimately justifiable criticisms about some of the articles we
were letting through (plagiarism issues and such).
>But if an article meets its requirements, it will eventually make it to the
>main page. So nominating more articles seems >to make sense.
+1. For a new user it can be a huge encouragement to see the article they
developed or expanded linked from the main page.
Daniel Case
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
