> wonder if creating dynamic articles from Wikidata is better > than creating static articles
Not for years to decades. https://twitter.com/AustenAllred/status/967842020151603200 On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 3:02 AM, John Erling Blad <jeb...@gmail.com> wrote: > I wonder if creating dynamic articles from Wikidata is better than creating > static articles. Because we lack tools for this, it is easier to do this > offline, and as a consequence we get the static bot-articles. > > Den søn. 25. feb. 2018, 16.26 skrev Gabriel Thullen <gabr...@thullen.com>: > >> I should have joined in this discussion a little earlier. I work a lot with >> the French Wikipedia, and we do not just translate articles from English (6 >> million articles) to French (only 2 million articles). The French community >> is large and active, and provide a unique local perspective on the >> different articles that are written. And when I say local, I mean that >> things are seen differently in France than in the French speaking part of >> Switzerland or Belgium. >> >> I think that we are ignoring something very important here: putting it >> simply, Wikipedia contributors do two things. They add information to the >> encyclopedia by improving articles or writing new ones, and they curate or >> check the existing articles. All this talk about machine translation does >> not address the second aspect of what the volunteer contributors do. >> This means that we could have hundreds of thousands of articles in a >> language with very few active contributors. Will that small community be >> able to oversee so many articles ? >> >> For example, have a look at the list of Wikipedias ordered by number of >> articles: >> 1. English - 5,578,081 articles - 138,479 active users - 1,230 admins >> 2. Cebuano - 5,383,108 articles - 162 active users - 5 admins >> 3. Swedish - 3,784,331 articles - 2,929 active users - 65 admins >> 4. German - 2,157,495 articles - 20, 085 active users - 194 admins >> >> When I have some time, I will look into different ratios like number or >> articles/active users or number of articles/number of native language >> speakers... Now I am not saying that our Swedish friends have abused >> machine translation of articles, but I definetly that something is not >> quite right about the Cebuano wiki... >> Gabe >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 4:06 PM, Anders Wennersten < >> m...@anderswennersten.se >> > wrote: >> >> > I am very happy to follow this thread as I believe it is addressing a >> very >> > relevant issue. >> > >> > In my mind we can divide up the different language version into 5 >> > categories: >> > >> > 1.Enwp, >> > >> > 2.the next 6-7 (de,fr, es,jp,pt,ru..) >> > >> > 3.the next 20 or so, where the basic workprocesses are applied >> > >> > 4.the next 40-50 which are struggling to generate more input then what is >> > vandalised >> > >> > 5.the rest which in reality is no viable online encyclopedias >> > >> > And for me no 1 priority is to accept that there are these categories, >> and >> > that what is applicable for cat 1 and 2 is not so for 4 and 5. >> > >> > I believe the grant model could easily make room for subsiding good >> > initiatives addressing the problem for cat 4 and 5 (and perhaps 3). >> > >> > And I think it is very presumptuous to start talking of what technique to >> > use and things like translation. If we open up for creative brainstorming >> > (among the ones having the need) I think very many other ways can turn >> up. >> > Myself I am deeply impressed what you can create using Wikidata as a base >> > source of info, and being from a version of type 3 I see how much my >> > homeversion improve content with wikidata created infoboxes >> > >> > Anders >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Den 2018-02-24 kl. 13:51, skrev John Erling Blad: >> > >> >> This discussion is going to be fun! =D >> >> >> >> A little more than seventy Wikipedia-projects has more than 65k >> articles, >> >> the remaining two hundred or so are pretty small. >> >> >> >> What if a base set of articles were opened for paid translators? There >> are >> >> several lists of such base sets. We have both the thousand articles from >> >> "List of articles every Wikipedia should have"[1] and and the ten >> thousand >> >> articles from the expanded list[2]. >> >> >> >> Lets say verified good translators was paid about $0.01 per word (about >> $1 >> >> for a 1k-article) for translating one of those articles into another >> >> language, with perhaps a higher pay for contributors in high-cost >> >> countries. The pay would also have to be higher for languages that lacks >> >> good translation tools. >> >> >> >> I believe this would be an _enabling_ activity for the communities, as >> >> without a base set of articles it won't be possible to build a community >> >> at >> >> all. By not paying for new articles, and only translating >> well-referenced >> >> articles, some of the disputes in the communities could be avoided. >> >> Perhaps >> >> we should also identify good source articles, that would be a help. >> >> Translated articles should be above some minimum size, but they does not >> >> have to be full translations of the source article. >> >> >> >> A real problem is that our existing lists of good articles other >> projects >> >> should have is pretty much biased towards Western World, so they need a >> >> lot >> >> of adjustments. Perhaps such a project would identify our inherit bias? >> >> >> >> [1] >> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_articles_every_Wikip >> >> edia_should_have >> >> [2] >> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_articles_every_Wikip >> >> edia_should_have/Expanded >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik >> >> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik >> >> i/Wikimedia-l >> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> >> >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik >> > i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
