>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.