Hoi,
When people do not edit Wikipedia we are talking about a situation that
does not exist.
I wholeheartedly disagree with you as you mistake the process with the
product. Our aim is to produce a product and we should endeavour to provide
it in a SMART way. We lose out when we do not do the
Yes, and in this case I am saying that the bot populated Wikipedias are
bad products because qualitatively poor, instead of an architecture of a
data population and a creation of articles through Wikidata or through a
central repository.
Basically it's for a control of the content.
A bot
Hoi,
Arguably the same is true for Wikipedia. Many faulty articles exist. There
are many list articles incomplete because people do not maintain them.
Wikilinks refer to the wrong information. Incomplete information is often
as bad as wrong information. Badly written articles are bad particularly
Hoi,
Did you notice Swedish and Waray Waray in the graph ?
Thanks,
GerardM
On 6 July 2015 at 05:11, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
An encouraging article in Technology Review:
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/539001/why-wikipedia-open-access-revolution/
Pine
Hoi,
Given that this is the Wikimedia mailing list, the assumption that
Wikipedia is primary is not necessary. The objective of the Wikimedia
Foundation is in this more relevant. Consequently the balance for an
argument is different.
I blog often about issues with Wikidata and Wikipedia. I often
Hoi,
Wikidata like Commons is a project in its own right. Its aim is to
contribute to the aim of the Wikimedia Foundation first and to other
projects second.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 6 July 2015 at 11:42, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote:
If people don't edit Wikipedia, Wikipedia would
I'm a bot operator in Persian Wikipedia (~500K articles) and I'm directly
or indirectly responsible for creating more than half of the articles in
that Wiki using automated or semi-automated tools that I built. If our
language used Latin alphabet, we definitely would be one of the five
biggest
I would consider this discussion as a sensible one if you are editors of
Cebuano and Waray-Waray Wikipedias, oppose the idea of creating
bot-generated articles and have better plan how to increase quality and
quantity of those projects. Optionally, you are always free to offer your
help to those
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi,
When people do not edit Wikipedia we are talking about a situation that
does not exist.
I wholeheartedly disagree with you as you mistake the process with the
product. Our aim is to produce a product and
Gerard, an interesting statistic is that you have chosen to post 7 out of
the 16 emails on this thread in under 2 hours.
Perhaps you might benefit from considering what list subscribers are
expecting and want filling their inboxes, before posting more?
Thanks
Fae ... mobile
I think these wikis have been on that list for a while. I don't know the
specifics of why they're there, though, or comment on the depth/quality of
the articles on the wikis.
Joe
On Sun, 5 Jul 2015 at 22:32 Salvador A salvador1...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi!
I just I noticed that Cebuano and
Hoi,
I would not say that the Encyclopaedia Britannica is NOT an encyclopaedia.
The objective of Wikipedia is EXACTLY that it is read. Not that it is
edited.
You can argue all you like against bot generated articles but in the final
analysis it is doing a much better job than not providing
The 1,2+ M articles on species generated by LsjBot from COL
(CatalogueOfLife) was completed in September 2014.
Now under way by Lsjbot is generation of geographic entities from
GeoNames [1]. Still being in an early phase and there is a lot to look
into like the links to Wikidata. A testrun
https://war.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinaurog:ActiveUsers
https://ceb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espesyal:ActiveUsers
An encyclopedia in the first 10 places without a community is it an
encyclopedia?
Is the community important to say that wikipedia is wikipedia? In this case
these projects are demonstrating
Hoi,
While the quality of the articles is not something I care to discuss. The
main thing of the many articles is that as a result of the existence of
these articles, the number of readers of these languages has gone up and
hte number of editors has gone up as well.
Our aim is to share in the sum
This is an example about how to produce a formal impact without a real
impact.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Salvador A salvador1...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi!
I just I noticed that Cebuano and Waray-waray Wikipedia are inside the list
of the 10 Wikipedias with more articles.[1] It seems it
Hoi,
How do you know that there is no impact ?
https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthlyCombined.htm shows
clearly how much Cebuano has grown considerably in page views. The same is
true for Waray Waray. Compare it to languages with a similar number of
speakers. Please explain how
If people don't edit Wikipedia, Wikipedia would not exist.
As I have said the IT tools to support community are welcome, the IT tools
to populate a wikipedia like a population of a database should not be
welcome in Wikipedia, they are more appropriated for Wikidata where the
integration with
Yes, my concern is not to populate articles with data, because it is
normal.
The recent approach of Wikidata to be connected with data repositories and
to harvest data and to feed Wikidata is the best approach.
My concern is connected with the old approach to have a local repository
(probably
These are fascinating experiments, I hope that the Waray-waray and Cebuano
communities will at some point report back to the wider community as to how
this worked out. My fear is that too fast a growth rate could overwhelm
whatever community we have in those languages leading to burn out of
Amir makes a good point that it is easier to improve an article than to create
it. Bot created articles would be particularly useful on en: for the many
thousands of organisms that do not have an article yet. I run into missing
articles all the time in marine organisms, but do not have the time
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 4:55 AM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthlyCombined.htm shows
clearly how much Cebuano has grown considerably in page views.
It's a shame we don't have filtered page view data: it'd be good to
know whether
The Wikimedia Nederland chapter report on May and June is available on Meta:
*https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Reports/Wikimedia_Nederland/201505
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Reports/Wikimedia_Nederland/201505*
It is also included in this message as plain
Hoi,
Why not to focus on that technology instead of bots?
Then every Wikipedia could benefit from Lsjbot's sources, without
polluting the article namespace but still providing information to
readers and incentive to editors.
That is EXACTLY what Reasonator and AutoDesc already do.
Content
I can probably speak for those communities. On the whole, the logic behind the
Lsjbot experiment was simple: build it and they will come.
So far though, this hasn’t happened. We from the Tagalog Wikipedia were also
approached for this experiment, but we know what happens when bot-generated
Hoi,
Greenpeace has a great writeup on the subject. It describes the current
issues with the use of energy and how big websites make a difference.
Thanks,
GerardM
Here is the link to the other Greenpeace Report.
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/Global/usa/planet3/PDFs/2015ClickCleanKeyFindings.pdf
This fiscal year we are going to see what can be done, if anything, to
influence the owners of the data centers and the building owner for our
offices to use more
News and notes: Training the Trainers; VP of Engineering leaves WMF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-07-01/News_and_notes
In the media: EU freedom of panorama; Nehru outrage; BBC apology
I don't think any bot is subscribed to this list.
Il 07/07/2015 01:08, Richard Symonds ha scritto:
Are there any Cebuano or Waray community members on the list to offer an
opinion?
On 6 Jul 2015 23:47, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I belong to the group of Josh and Ilario
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Richard Symonds
richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Are there any Cebuano or Waray community members on the list to offer an
opinion?
There is no likely productive outcome of sharing more opinions on the bot
issue, even by members of those communities.
Are there any Cebuano or Waray community members on the list to offer an
opinion?
On 6 Jul 2015 23:47, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I belong to the group of Josh and Ilario and others who have strong
objections against the inundation of pseudo articles (one
Completely agree with you Asaf. I don't think it's up to us Wikimedia-l
subscribers, but up to each specific community. We can learn from their
decisions but are on difficult ground if we judge them for it. Your third
paragraph was a bit complex for me to succinctly reword while agreeing
with it,
On 07.07.2015 01:14, Asaf Bartov wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Richard Symonds
richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Are there any Cebuano or Waray community members on the list to offer an
opinion?
2. separate the top 10 issue that was the original trigger for this
renewed
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Richard Symonds
richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
it's a good starting point. But rather than a top list,
perhaps we should be looking at number of editors/number of speakers?
We (well, some of us, I guess), have indeed been looking at that figure
(one
Il 06/07/2015 07:31, Salvador A ha scritto:
Hi!
I just I noticed that Cebuano and Waray-waray Wikipedia are inside the list
of the 10 Wikipedias with more articles.[1]
Let's call them non-redirect pages in the main namespace containing the
text '[[', please.
It seems it happened during
35 matches
Mail list logo
