On sv:wp our main headaches has not been technical problems in bots but
inconsistencies (errors) in sources.
For our lakes the hydrological authorities has in some cases called a
group of nearby and/or conneced lakes with a plural name, like
"Pikelakes", while the mapauthorities call them different names like
East Pikelake West Pikelake. And the names in the hydrological
authorities database has set there for almost 100 years without anyone
scrutinizing them, like he sv:wp community now does with all names and
finding errors.
And even if this only is relevant for far less then 1% of all generated
articles it becomes around hundred in total. Many of these cases are
quite complicated to fix (area of lakes, depths) and there is a debate
who should fix these, the botowner (who has generated correctly from
sources) or community people (who have problems finds relevant
basedata), or should these be deleted or rewritten from scratch?
Similar issues with articles generated by Lsjot, but here it is easier
to fix manually/semiautomatic.
The generation of 30000 lakes has otherwise been a huge success.
*We have gone from having around 500 articles to a 60 fold increase. We
have correct figure for things like length of circumsphere, depth,
volume Ph-level, which is extremly hard to find manually, not to mention
the exterm challage that there are examples of some 400 lakes called
witht the same name, very hard to handle manually (which data goes to
which article)
*activities has gone up steeply related to lakes, to get photos to them,
to edit things like nearby town, small island and even more to include
corre links from all references to lake in other geogrphic articles
*we also believe we have attracted new editors, who are happy enter data
of local bathing places etc, but do not have had the comeptence to enter
a lakearticle from scratch (which IS complicated)
Anders
Fæ skrev 2013-11-27 14:01:
As well as finding out where this has happened, it would be good to
have some cases of where "bots went bad" explained. My main concern
would be leaving a bot to create thousands of articles but in the
process creating a headache for limited numbers of maintainers, such
as article copy-editors, categorizers, illustrators, inter-linkers or
gnomic contributors.
For bot-writers like myself, there may be some common patterns to
learn from of which projects this sort of mass creation might be
useful and how to assess a project of this type for potential value
(we might want to fund some volunteer proposed projects along these
lines if they can be measured as effective and with valuable
outcomes).
Fae
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
