Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Proposal for moratorium on Gibraltar-related DYKs for 6 months[edit]

Proposal for one-year moratorium on Gibraltarpedia DYKs[edit]

More moderate proposal - limit number of Gibraltar-related DYKs per month[edit]

Consensus is No consensus, default to Oppose monthly restrictions on the number of Gibraltar DYKs. The main arguments against the proposal are that it places an undue burden on DYK maintainers and circumvents the normal DYK editorial process, and that it addresses a non-existent problem, given that the WP:Gibraltarpedia promotion has ended. Arguments for the monthly restriction are that it is a good compromise between an outright ban and complete permissiveness, and that it would serve as a precedent against similar marketing pushes being given visibility in the future.

Close by request at WP:ANRFC by VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 15:25, 20 April 2013 (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.

Per the above discussion, there are two issues that appear to be obvious. Firstly, the restrictions on Gibraltar DYKs has not actually lowered the number that are appearing; to have an average of around one every three days for such a minor physical area is ridiculous, and leaves Wikipedia wide open to accusations of being a marketing medium for Gibraltar tourism interests. Secondly, many of the opposes suggest that the restrictions are stifling the production of good Gibraltar-related content; quite apart from the fact that the statistics refute this, why on earth should whether an article appears on DYK alter the ability of someone to improve the articles? Answer - it doesn't - or at least it shouldn't.

Therefore, I propose the dropping of the restrictions completely, to be replaced with a single restriction - no more than three Gibraltar-related DYKs (that is, articles about Gibraltar itself or directly related purely to the territory) may appear on the main page in each calendar month. I suspect this would satisfy the large number of people who are clearly uneasy with what they perceive to be a misuse of Wikipedia by a small interest group. Black Kite (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Support 3[edit]

  1. Black Kite (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
    When you refer to "Gibraltar-related content", do you mean articles specifically about Gibraltar, or are you following the wider definition of Jayen466 that also covers Spain and Morocco? Prioryman (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
    Personally, since most of the articles seen to be "problematic" are actually about Gibraltar itself, I would stick with the former definition, although that is obviously for the community to decide should this proposal gain support. Black Kite (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
    If you're intending to make it about Gibraltar itself, could you then please amend your proposal to make the definition absolutely clear. One of the problems with the current restrictions is that there is little clarity about what the term "Gibraltar-related" actually means, whether it is Gibraltar itself, places near Gibraltar, or even unrelated place on the other side of the planet that are called Gibraltar. If you can be precise about what you want the restriction apply to, that will save a lot of argument later. Secondly, could you please add a timeframe for your proposed restriction to apply - three months, six months, a year or whatever. Prioryman (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
    Done, to the former. As for timeframe, I would make this open-ended with the ability to apply (as per here) for the restrictions to be lifted. I suspect that if the proposal said "for six months" for example, people would simply reply "and what happens after that?". Black Kite (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
    The problem with making them open-ended is that it becomes - as we are seeing on this page - hard to end them. If there is a consensus in favour of imposing restrictions, there should be a consensus to continue them. Right now, we are seeing that there is no consensus to either continue or discontinue the current restrictions. No consensus means that the current situation persists without a majority actually being in favour of it. By putting in a definite timeframe, you can make the community come back in (say) six months and review the situation. If there is no longer a majority in favour of restrictions there is no reason to continue them. Prioryman (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  2. --Andreas JN466 15:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  3. Three per month is fine, or even four: one per week or all four at once on a date that is important to the topic. Binksternet (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Binksternet idea Timpo (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support as a reasonable compromise (giving away too much in fact).Volunteer Marek 16:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support. Not ideal, but better. Ceoil (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  7. Support, as the most reasonable proposal that actually has a chance of passing. Robofish (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  8. Support, Not the best however it seems to be the best that will give a compromise on what is currently suggested which could gain a consensus. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
    For those concerned about Gibraltar directly abusing wikipedia's DYK feature, yes, I'd agree this is the most sensible proposal, but to my knowledge we barely have more than a couple of articles a months anyway so it seems a bit redundant...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
    I agree that all the restrictions should be lifted but clearly we have two sides at loggerheads not prepared to back down to achieve consensus so having this proposed compromise of watered-down restrictions is better and especially so if they are less likely to be needed to be used due to a lack of articles. We wouldn't notice it most of the time but they'd still be there to appease those who want restrictions. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  9. Support. I think three a month is too much, but better to have some limit than none. Neutron (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  10. Support. Sounds reasonable considering circumstances. This restriction would not become even noticeable unless another strong drive for creation of Gibraltar hooks starts.--Staberinde (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  11. Support. Per Neutron, some limit is better than none. TheOverflow (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  12. Support. Currently the Wikipedia Main page is still being used as a marketing medium for Gibraltar tourism interests. This proposal will reduce the problem and hopefully discourage similar marketing abuse in the future. --Atlasowa (talk) 10:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  13. I can support this. This is a unique case: the product of a for-profit business enterprise. Limiting the front page exposure in this case, or in the case of all profit-driven projects for that matter, seems prudent and reasonable. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  14. Support - Long, long overdue. Carrite (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  15. Honestly, the one-a-day restriction was too light as the frequency of hooks in January shows. I think most of the other restrictions are unnecessary at this point. However, I would suggest that the restriction on Victuallers should be left in place for him to appeal it on his own merits.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 07:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  16. Support But I will support a reduction to two DYKs a month too The Banner talk 14:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  17. Support as a workable compromise (I just found this by looking back through my watchlist).StaniStani  12:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  18. Support as the most likely to help the encyclopedia's credibility, and to prevent flooding by the disruptive tactics intended by, for example, #18 below. --Lexein (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose 3[edit]

  1. In this whole absurd discussion, no one has really explained how articles are "problematic" as Black Kite put it. If the articles meet all the requirements DYK should be happy that someone has gone through the trouble of nominating them.--Carabinieri (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
    They're problematic because they appear to be paid for. It's pretty simple, really. -- Tim Starling (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  2. Per Carabinieri. Gibraltar articles are, content-wise, no different than articles on other fairly minor places. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  3. Too much regulation is never a good thing. - Darwinek (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, we don't even have a handful of Gibraltarpedia articles being nominated every month!! The competition is over.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - Yawn...same song, second verse. Or is it verse two thousand and fifty? — Maile (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per my support for the initial proposal on this page; - and note that all the support !votes for that proposal are de facto opposes for this one, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
    1. No. All the support votes for the initial proposal are not de facto opposes for this one. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
      1. Oh go on, do explain you reasoning. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
    I was brought here by a message on my talkpage alerting me that articles on Morocco would be banned from DYK. If that is true, then consider this a strong oppose, on the grounds that articles about an entirely separate country should not be tarred with the same brush as Gibraltarpedia articles. If the statement made on my talkpage is inaccurate, consider this a neutral. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
    This proposal does not affect articles on Morocco at all: it is purely for articles on Gibraltar itself, as described above. (Even the other, more stringent proposal above this one only affects the northernmost tip of Morocco, as shown on the map.) Andreas JN466 17:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  7. I see no point in limiting coverage on Gibraltar at Wikipedia. Au contraire, Gibraltar has a very fascinating history and should be well covered. --Soman (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  8. Oppose: I don't believe it's necessary to begin with, but what the stats quoted throughout all the proposals and discussion fail to make adequately clear is that the bulk of the hooks posted in November through February period were submitted in October and November, and took a far longer time than usual for a DYK hook to wend their way through the system due to the restrictions put in place in November and which are still active (and seem unlikely to be lifted). The backlog finished processing last week: the five February hooks date from October 26 and 28 (before the restrictions), November 14 (shortly after they started), December 7, and December 27 (after the Gibraltarpedia contest ended). The thirteen January hooks had a wider range: five from October 15-30, four from November (three before the 10th), three from the second half of December (two post-contest), and the only 2013 hook about Gibraltar submitted so far from January 5. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  9. Strong oppose. They have at no point been overwhelming, and the only reason they were even that noticeable in the first place was the arse-backwards scaremongering around them. Limiting their number is patently ridiculous, especially after it's been proven they were far outnumbered by subjects no one ever raised a fuss about (including, sorry Crisco, another geographical region, which makes the continued tourist argument more than a bit hypocritical). GRAPPLE X 21:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  10. oppose per my support of the initial proposal at the top of the page.--Kevmin § 22:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  11. Oppose as per Carabinieri. Oh please! It's a simply ridiculous proposal. If the articles meet the requirements for DYK then by all means nominate. EagerToddler39 (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. I have thought for some time about supporting this as a compromise, but Black Kite's non-responsiveness on the timeframe is a deal-breaker for me. There must be a way of requiring continued consent for restrictions to continue. The biggest mistake made when the current restrictions were agreed was not to think of adding a timeframe. We now have a situation where the restrictions are going to continue even though there is clearly no consensus that they should. We shouldn't be repeating that mistake. Prioryman (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  13. Oppose This seems really ridiculous. Even from those DYKs listed by Andreas above, there really isn't a lot, especially in comparison to a number of other topics that push through 30+ DYKs a month. SilverserenC 03:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. This is even more draconian than the current restrictions which in theory allow one per day. Although now it is highly unlikely that there will be more than three or 4 a month, what is the point of enshrining this in yet more "rules", especially ones without a time-frame which means this whole thing will eventually start up again? Frankly, I'd prefer to keep the current restrictions rather than replace them with this. I !voted for the current restrictions as a prudent measure at the time, but I doubt if they're even necessary now. The main thrust of these new and more draconian proposals seems to be that we must continue to "teach Gibraltar a lesson" and "punish" the presumed culprits. If it's to preserve Wikipedia's image, frankly the image it's preserving looks an awfully petty one. Dare I say biting our nose to spite our face? Voceditenore (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  15. Oppose this and any other attempt to censor geographical areas off the main page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  16. Oppose This is still discrimination! The only way it wouldn't be is if we were to have a DYK rule stating that any topic cannot appear on the main page more than X number of times. --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me 13:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Now that's reasonable, but I'm not comfortable leaving the barn door wide open until such a proposal could be resolved. Let's rate-control this subject, then revise it to rate-control all later. --Lexein (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. The restriction should be extended to no Gibraltar articles at all for at least three years. — Hex (❝?!❞) 22:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. And just to show solidarity to the Gib project, I promise to submit to the DYK queue each and every stub I create in future that even mentions Gibraltar in passing. Jane (talk) 08:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Solidarity for appears-to-be-paid promotion? Ok, you side with spamming Wikipedia. Got it. BTW articles below the lower size limit aren't eligible for DYK; flooding with such nominations would be disruptive. --Lexein (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
      • 👍 Yes, I am all for DYK spam! Jane (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
        • That's the spirit. I knew you didn't need mollycoddling. Here's a huge Choco chip cookie.png cookie for energy. --Lexein (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
          • wow - surprising and funny. thanks for the link and the cookie. Jane (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  19. Oppose not only is the restriction excessive, it imposes too much extra burden on the DYK prep builder people to check this out. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Good point, we need to do everything we can to support the DYK prep builders and trust them to separate the good from the bad on a case-by-case basis. Jane (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

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.

Where to go from here?[edit]

It seems pretty clear that there is no consensus for any of the proposals on this page. Everyone's flexed their muscles and prevented a decision either way. I'm still in favor of lifting all restrictions (and I think the opposition to this is untenable), but it seems pretty clear that a lot of people disagree with this. So where do we go from here? Do we just close this whole discussion and stick to the status quo? Can a different kind of compromise be reached?--Carabinieri (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

We could review the DYK process to see whether it needs any kind of checks and balances to prevent any subject from dominating; or whether there are opportunities to encourage more people to submit a wider range of articles (I rarely participate, for instance, because I don't have time or inclination to review others' work). Such things may already have been done, of course; and I in no way mean to criticise the current process or those who generously devote their energies to it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Closing this whole discussion is a form of compromise also. It is a settlement of differences reached by each side making no mutual concessions. Poeticbent talk 21:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

George Ho (talk · contribs) came up with an interesting suggestion a few days ago. Instead of trying to repeal all of the restrictions at once, we could list the individual restrictions one at a time and see which ones people think should continue and which should be lifted. It's clear that there's no consensus for a "big bang" approach but a more small-bore approach might find favour. I think it's worth trying. For ease of reference, here are the five individual restrictions.Prioryman (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Restricting who can review Gibraltar-related articles;
  • Placing new nominations in a special holding area;
  • Requiring new nominations to be reviewed by two editors instead of the usual one;
  • Requiring that COI and POV issues be explicitly addressed in the review;
  • Restricting the number of such articles appearing on the Main Page to no more than one per day.
What there should be, now that every one of the proposed changes to the Gibraltar restrictions has been defeated, is a moratorium on proposals for changes. Enough, Prioryman, enough! Bielle (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback, let's see what others say. Please note that I didn't say it should be tried straight away. I think there's a good case for having a time-out for some months. Prioryman (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
There are too many proposals at this moment. If all others are closed by uninvolved administrator, then lifting each individual requirement should be proposed without objections. How about proposing a consensus in WP:AN/RFC? If not, alternatives? --George Ho (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
What I am inclined to do, personally, is follow your suggestion of tackling the individual restrictions, but not straight away. I would look at returning to this issue in September, by when the restrictions will have been in place for a full year. Frankly I think there is too much dissension, too much disinformation and too many personal vendettas being pursued to make further discussions being fruitful at this stage. A period of calm followed by a more piecemeal approach to lifting the restrictions feels like the best option to me. Prioryman (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Make it September 2014. I'm Gibraltar-ed out for this year and most of next. We still have Gibraltar stuff popping up...so, how about resetting that clock to when the last of them is processed and there is zero, absolutely nothing regarding Gibraltar in the pipeline.--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • There've been only 2 nominations for the whole of this year so far and there is only 1 nomination "in the pipeline" at the moment, as you put it. There's never going to be a point "when the last of them is processed" as there's still going to be a trickle of nominations, though I expect probably not more than 1 or 2 a month at the most. Prioryman (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • If you don't count the three about Algeciras that have or will run this month. (Yeah, let's not go through all that again, but Algeciras is within project scope.) Andreas JN466 13:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't count them and nor does anyone else because they have nothing to do with Gibraltar. Knock it off, Andreas. Prioryman (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

One way to go...[edit]

Prioryman, this battleground would almost inevitably revert to a flowering meadow if you were to completely disengage from it. Worth a try? --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 23:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Gibraltar vs. Gibraltarpedia[edit]

Hi all, I'd like to clarify the issue of Gibraltar vs. Gibraltarpedia.

To my understanding, the Gibraltarpedia project is focused on Gibraltar (I say "focused", sorry for my English, since it's been the Gibraltar government the one promoting this project and only Gibraltarians the members of the project that live or are related to the areas that supposedly are covered by this project). Scope of the project has been defined by a Gibraltar-based and "marked" by means of a very intrusive wikiproject notice in the talk page of the articles (said notice was considered so intrusive in the Spanish wikipedia that was banned). However, the rest of areas supposedly covered by this project are simply passive actors in this drama.

What I'd like to clarify is the fact that the restrictions should affect only to Gibraltar-related articles AND to articles marked by the the Gibraltarpedia project. It means that, for instance, this article should not be affected by restrictions, provided that I won't include the Gibraltarpedia notice (and I won't do it as I do not support this initiative). Do we agree on this? --Ecemaml (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

We have already had a discussion above about turning the restrictions on Gibraltar-related articles into a ban on any article covered by Gibraltarpedia, even if it's not Gibraltar-related, and at the last count it has been shot down by 29-2. Please don't reopen that argument. I would add also that if the issue is "Gibraltarpedia" articles, then I would expect WikiProject Gibraltar articles to be exempted. WikiProject Gibraltar, which I established 5 years ago, is totally separate from Gibraltarpedia and is likewise a "passive actor in this drama", as you put it. Prioryman (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I didn't follow the big mess you've created. It seems that just because your Gibraltar Government-backed project wishes to disguise within a broader scope, a lot of places that are in no way related to Gibraltar are suffering from your mismanagement. I don't think it's fair. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
You're damn right it's not fair. WikiProject Gibraltar has never been in any way controversial and it is not in any way backed by the government of Gibraltar - you should know that, you joined it on 17 September 2008 [8]. It's got no connection with Gibraltarpedia but it's still suffering from the fallout from that. Maile66, who wrote the original restrictions, has said that he intended to target Gibraltarpedia but got the wording wrong (writing "Gibraltar-related" instead), which has meant that WikiProject Gibraltar and dozens of other WikiProjects with nothing to do with Gibraltarpedia have become collateral damage. And for your information, I have nothing whatsoever to do with the management of Gibraltarpedia. Prioryman (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Request: Can you please disengage all non Gibraltar-related places from Gibraltarpedia[edit]

Now I understand that a lot of places that have been, arbitrarily and without any consent, included in a controversial project are now banned from being included in DYK.

I formally request you, Gibraltarpedia guys, to reduce the scope of your project to Gibraltar-related articles and therefore release them from this restriction, which is only related to Gibraltar and to the mismanagement of this project. Is it that possible? --Ecemaml (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Ecemaml, I think you misunderstand - there was a proposal to ban everything in the scope of Gibraltarpedia in the discussion above but that has effectively been defeated - 26 against, 2 for at the current count. Places that are not Gibraltar-related are not affected at all. It has no effect on your Monte Hacho Fortress article. Prioryman (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Whose consent do you think is needed, for a project to consider articles within its scope? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

In an ideal world no consent is needed. In a not so ideal world in which the Gibraltar promoters use non-Gibraltar places as sort of hostage to press the community not to impose restrictions on Gibrltar-related issues on the grounds that other places should be affected, the obvious solution would be "Focus on Gibraltar issues (the ones that create controversy), sort out the controversial issues and leave the rest of topics alone", since no one from the administrations of Ceuta, Algeciras, Tangiers or La Linea promoted (and paid) any wikiproject. I don't think I can be clearer. --Ecemaml (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Very confused. Is it being suggested that this Wikipedia project should stop at a national boundary? One of the appeals of this wikiproject and its mission is that it is multinational and multicultural. I would not be happy to have projects that emphasised a controversial frontier. I know several editors are enjoying this debate but can I also point out that the Gpedia project does not need or value or reward DYK appearances and the only competition it ran was won by an editor of the Hindi wikipedia. Most of the DYK en:articles were written by one editor who has sadly left the project. Victuallers (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
It shouldnt be confusing, you caused the issue to start with. At this point I am aghast you still dont understand. The Gibraltar wikiproject includes areas that are strictly speaking outside the the geographical area of Gibraltar. Which is usual practice for geographical based projects. So quite understandably the people who have issues with DYK being leveraged for personal enrichment want to include any DYK's that are covered by the wikiproject within the restrictions. Some of the comments regarding this by Jayen above may be enlightening. Ecemaml, as someone whose work falls within the project but outside the strict geographical boundary, is also understandably a bit miffed. Due to no fault of his own, his work is potentially subject to restrictions due to actions taken by people outside of his control, in an geographical area he isnt part of, and given WP's rules on wikiprojects declaring interests, he is unable to prevent in any manner. Realistically there are two options, either stick to strict geographical boundaries - this would prevent editors like Ecemaml coming under the restrictions. The other option is you could attempt, as Prioryman has above, to convince people that the restrictions should only cover strictly geographical Gibraltar areas - given the project wants to claim areas outside that, the obvious tourist attractions etc, its quite natural to take a 'you dont get it both ways' stance. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
From my own perspective including parts of Cadiz and Morocco makes it more chance of improving coverage and being "nurtured" on previously neglected areas of wikipedia. Technically, national wikiprojects are rigidly inline with national boundaries so I understand the concern but I think the goal of this project is the "Bridge Europe and Africa" by collaborating as a region. Personally I think I'd rather see a Cadizpedia and a Moroccopedia operating too which would have a clearer focus but anything which helps improve coverage I think is a good thing.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
"Personal enrichment"?? .... the project does not reward DYKs - I don't get paid and have never been paid to edit. The project removed the points from getting a DYK in the completed competition long before it completed last year. I think DYK is a great project. I used to help run it. That project should decide what it wants to happen. I don't think it wants my advice, but I'd remove the barriers as I know you have not found any promotion - just article creation. Dr B's proposals are fine. The reason for not stopping at national boundaries was because we wanted to create a bridge and we didn't want to concentrate on a frontier. I was personally inspired by the Foundations strategy and the work of Mark Graham at the OII which shows how articles fall off dramatically once you pass into Morocco. (A Tangierpedia was discussed with the Wikipedians in Morocco and with the Foundation last year). Victuallers (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
"the project does not reward DYKs"? Was there not a competion that rewarded DYKs (among other things)? Weren't you paid to administer (and promote) that competition (among other things)? The Gibraltarpedia page lists the DYKs... they are clearly being used to measure the project's success. TheOverflow (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)