Fair points. It got me thinking, though. What proportion of Wikipedia editing is automated? Or rather, what proportion of edits would be considered "human" as opposed to "something else" (done on autopilot or using a bot)? This is a different question to what proportion are automated imports - that sort of question is something I've been meaning to ask at Commons, and also trying to find out what proportion of pictures get used in a recognisable way (and what is done with pictures that are unlikely to ever be used).
Carcharoth On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Sage Ross <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Carcharoth <[email protected]> > wrote: >> I recently came across this wiki: >> >> http://www.medpedia.com/ >> >> It seemed a lot better than Wikipedia for what I wanted to look up. >> >> Has anyone else come across this wiki before? >> > > It launched to modest fanfare last year, but I hadn't seen much about it > since. > > It looks like their main focus has been batch imports of content from > other sources, including lots of full journal articles automatically > quasi-formatted for the wiki. Actual human edits seem to be minimal, > though. Compare all edits (dominated by automatic imports) versus > mainspace edits (which trickle in slowly): > > http://wiki.medpedia.com/Special:RecentChanges?namespace=0&limit=500&title=Special%3ARecentChanges > http://wiki.medpedia.com/Special:RecentChanges?namespace=&limit=500&title=Special%3ARecentChanges > > -Sage > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
