From how they're labeled, I think they cycle every day?
None of my acquaintances who have Wikipedian insider experience have much familiarity with the "Did you know" box. It seems like a niche within a niche that operates without serious input from people who care about the rest of the project.
"In The News" is apparently also an editor clique with its own weird dynamics, but it doesn't elevate as many weird tiny articles to the Main Page because the topics there have to be, you know, in the news.
It's not the Uncanny Valley. It's Shit Mountain.
Reflection (artificial intelligence) is dreck of a high order. It cites one arXiv post after another, along with marketing materials directly from OpenAI and Google themselves... How do the people who write this shit dress themselves in the morning without pissing into their own socks?
The "trivial" procedure for suggesting that an article be deleted was evidently written by the kids who liked programming their parents' VCR.
Counterpoint: I get to complain about whatever I want.
I could write a lengthy comment about how a website that is nominally editable by "anyone" is in practice a walled garden of acronym-spouting rules lawyers who will crush dissent by a thousand duck nibbles. I could elaborate upon that observation with an analogy to Masto reply guys and FOSS culture at large.
Or I could ban you for fun. I haven't decided yet. I'm kind of giddy from eating a plate of vegan nacho fries and a box of Junior Mints.
"Vibe coding? Back in my day, we called it teledildonics."
Please acquaint yourself with the definition of the word latter on your way to the egress.
Do we have any experts on Wikipedian article-deletion practices around here? Because that looks really thinly sourced.
Bose–Einstein condensate