This is a failed proposal. Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use the talk page or initiate a thread at the village pump. |
I'm self-snowing this as a failed proposal.
This proposal was about how ITN works right now and has been working for some time, which is randomly, inconsistently, slowly, arbitrarily, insularly, and worse of all, unprofessionally and out of step with all the other important processes on Wikipedia. The assertion was that right now, DYK deserves the prominent position, and I am glad that quite a lot of people did agree with the detailed justification I gave. However, it is clear that there are enough people who either think these problems just don't exist (despite always wondering why ITN has pitiful levels of participation, or why it often fails to produce an update for days on end), or enough people acknowledge some or all of these problems do exist, but don't think swapping ITN and DYK round is a solution. Putting aside the swap idea, it is clear from the comments that in my opinion, the basic concepts and workings of ITN are clearly still not collectively known or understood, and people will still happily contradict each other all day over what ITN is for, and how people use it, both insiders and outsiders. This is not a Good Thing imo. While a swap is clearly not going to happen, there is probably consensus here that ITN needs reform, but obviously, that conclusion would be better coming from an uninvolved observer. I may or may not put up some proposals later. For now though, I'm going back to some more productive article writing. MickMacNee (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC) |
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.
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.
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.
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:
Please direct discussion of the proposal to the talk page.