Template:Did you know nominations/Effective accelerationism
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 01:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Effective accelerationism
- ... that venture capitalists Marc Andreessen and Garry Tan have supported effective accelerationism by adding "e/acc" to their social media usernames? Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/silicon-valley-tech-leaders-accelerationism-eacc-twitter-profiles-2023-7
- Reviewed:
I will reviewTemplate:Did you know nominations/The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey - Comment: Created by Jenny8lee with major additions by Edelsmann.
- Reviewed:
Converted from a redirect by Jenny8lee (talk) at 21:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC). Nominated by WatkynBassett (talk) at 14:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Effective accelerationism; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- @Jenny8lee, Edelsmann, and WatkynBassett: This article contains multiple maintenance templates. I will review this when they are resolved.--Launchballer 09:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Launchballer: Thank you for taking the time! Yesterday I made an effort to address the various templates and incorporate more reliable sources. I hope that the concerns are now addressed, but to err on the safe side it is probably best to wait a few more days and see if further concerns are raised. If more substantial concerns are raised, I would unfortunately fold this nomination because I personally have no capacity to deal with contention and unnecessary conflict right now. WatkynBassett (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Long enough, new enough. No valid copyright concerns, no maintenance templates found, not seeing any neutrality issues but I'll probably take another look in a few days just in case. QPQ done. The hook is sourced to the New York Times and WP:BUSINESSINSIDER; the former is paywalled, while Insider, as well as WP:FORBES and WP:TECHCRUNCH, are all yellow on WP:RSP, and I'd want to know what makes them reliable.--Launchballer 16:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your work tackling this difficult nomination:
- The NYT article can be accessed via the archive-link provided in the article.
- WP:FORBES explains that Forbes is reliable if the article is written by a staff member. This is the case here ("By Emily Baker-White, Forbes Staff").
- WP:TECHCRUNCH seems reliable to me in this case, because the article is written by the Editor In Chief of TechCrunch+ and not by a random contributor. Furthermore, no COI was apparent so it seems that policy is fulfilled here.
- WP:BI is always difficult: The author of the article is listed as a "Senior Technology Reporter" so probably a staff member which weights favorably. I saw no COI and the last RFC on BI leaned a tiny bit in favor of it being a bit more reliable lately. So in total, I also consider this source to be valid. But happy to discuss. All the best! WatkynBassett (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Good enough for me. I forgot to say that the hook was both short enough and interesting in my earlier review. Let's roll.--Launchballer 09:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
WatkynBassett the hook is somewhat flat in the current high demand for spots at WT:DYK, and that isn't likely to get the reader to click on the article, IMO. A better hook would be appreciated. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: What do you consider flat about it? For Launchballer and me it seemed fine. I struggle a bit with investing more time in this, as this drive-by nomination of mine has taken up much more energy than any other nomination of mine beforehand (it should be fun, shouldn't it?). Do you prefer this ALT1: ... that adherents of effective accelerationism believe that technological progress is a solution for poverty and war? Source: El Pais WatkynBassett (talk) 09:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Launchballer, can you review? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: What do you consider flat about it? For Launchballer and me it seemed fine. I struggle a bit with investing more time in this, as this drive-by nomination of mine has taken up much more energy than any other nomination of mine beforehand (it should be fun, shouldn't it?). Do you prefer this ALT1: ... that adherents of effective accelerationism believe that technological progress is a solution for poverty and war? Source: El Pais WatkynBassett (talk) 09:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Long enough, new enough. No valid copyright concerns, no maintenance templates found, not seeing any neutrality issues but I'll probably take another look in a few days just in case. QPQ done. The hook is sourced to the New York Times and WP:BUSINESSINSIDER; the former is paywalled, while Insider, as well as WP:FORBES and WP:TECHCRUNCH, are all yellow on WP:RSP, and I'd want to know what makes them reliable.--Launchballer 16:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
