- 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Databending edit
- ... that databending of images (example pictured) can occur through "the WordPad effect"?
- ALT1:... that an Internet bot databends Creative Commons-licensed imagery on Flickr?
- Reviewed: Hardy Richardson
- Comment: This is my first technically-dense article, so I would appreciate it if anyone could raise any issues or confusing parts that they read.
Moved to mainspace by 23W (talk). Self nominated at 23:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC).
New enough. Long enough. Neural tone. Citations throughout. Two of the four cited sources (Wired and the Washington Post) are reputable/reliable sources. Hook is cited to Wired. But I'm not sure if the other two sources (short blogs on Gizmodo and The Next Web) can be considered reliable/encyclopedic. (I find what the blogs are saying consistent with the message in the more well-known sources.) I'd like more experienced DYK reviewers' take on them. Hybernator (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- I've seen Gizmodo cited plenty of times elsewhere in and out of Wikipedia; same with The Next Web. Harrison Weber (author of the Next Web article) has also written for VentureBeat, so I think we can take it as reliable. 23W 18:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- OK. Let's ask more experienced DYK editors for their take. User:BlueMoonset, User:Hawkeye7, could you chime in? Hybernator (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- I can't speak for The Next Web, but Estes is on the About page as the only Senior Writer for Gizmodo (there are a bunch of staff writers plus some contributing editors, and they also list an editorial staff), and the citation is there to support the fact that he did indeed say in his article what he was quoted as saying by Ahuja and Lu. I don't see any reason to exclude it. If you're concerned about a source you can always check the reliable sources noticeboard or get an opinion from it; I couldn't find anything about The Next Web there, so you'd have to ask. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, BlueMoonset. I've posted a query on the reliable sources notice board. Hybernator (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok. The Reliable Sources noticeboard has given the green light on The Next Web [1]. It's good to go. Hybernator (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
