Before you do that in the future, perhaps it would be a good idea to understand why a project had to, after years of trying to work with a valued editor and to mitigate the problems caused, finally remove him from the project.

Risker, 04/02/2014 13:40: You're putting words in his mouth. Saying, for instance, how sad it is that about 1 % of the USA population is in jail doesn't equal saying that all people in jail should be immediately liberated; similarly, I'm always sad when I block a user, because it's a failure, but that doesn't mean I won't do what's needed. Nemo, he named a specific user. I don't think I'm putting words in his

On 4 February 2014 14:03, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote: .. As someone who has made around 3 million automated edits on Commons and uploaded over 200,000 valuable educational images there, I would love to do similar work to benefit the English Wikipedia. I do not feel in the least bit encouraged to even try to set up a content creation or even an uncontroversial en.wp house-keeping project in 2014 considering how much of my volunteer time would be lost it debate any proposal there is likely to create, compared to the simplicity of other Wikimedia projects. Knowing what happens to anyone who becomes "of interest" and has a large number of edits, along with the associated endless repeated attempts to find any single problematic edit out of hundreds of thousands of perfectly good content creation, I find the word "merrily" a poor choice. The extraordinary case that Sam mentioned has been a widely discussed lesson to all bot-writers, many of us carefully do our work in a way that avoids ever attempting to put our heads above the parapet and risk becoming targets of depressing damaging witch-hunts, reputation ruining bad faith allegations and extreme effectively *years*-long sanctions from those with big hammers. So rather than "merrily" one might better chose from "cautiously", "covertly" or even "fearfully" and "not". Risker, out of interest, considering my long track record of useful bot-work on Commons, would you support my proposal to let Faebot do some sensible non-controversial work on en.wp or do you think I am a danger to Wikimedia? I'd defer to the opinion of the Bot Approval Group, Fae. Bots have done

On 4 February 2014 15:54, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote: unintentional, issues), project we added successes. barely I take that as a no.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to understand how bad ArbCom managed the Rich Farmbrough case by putting him against a slow death that would ultimately end in a year-long ban handled by a single administrator.

doesn't deserve to have his case reheard on this mailing list

On 4 February 2014 12:27, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Risker, 04/02/2014 17:59: > > doesn't deserve to have his case reheard on this mailing list

A great tip would be to avoid changing this thread into a personal attack on Risker or anybody else. Thank you. Thyge/Sir48

@Anders: I seem to have unintentionally derailed your excellent thread. My apologies; I've taken responses to that subthread offline. To return to your main point: we do need 'A strategy for semi-automated article generation; and inclusion of Wikidata'. Anders Wennersten writes: < [we] will not be able to achieve our goal without... technical expertise < (like knowledge in Lua, how to write datainterface to external dataproviders) And it is important to attract and expand this sort of expertise. Not only through local chapter support but through collaboration across different project-communities, as you say. @Gerard: I second your vision for Wikidata. It is a natural place to cultivate tools for large-scale creation and enhancement of information. And for now it seems open to experimentation, being bold, trying and reverting things. +1 ! Sam. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Thanks for your input! I agree that with Wikidata we can generate article content semiautomatic without the controversy we have seen as for now. But our learning is it takes much more time then expected to get Wikidata operational on the data we want to get into it For our data we are working with just now, Swedish entities like administrative units, towns, parishes, lakes etc we have found: 1.Before we load Wikidata we must have the identities correct on svwp, both name and official "entitynumber" and coordinates. We thought this would be simple but we find that it takes much longer then anticipated as we want this data to be 99,8% correct not 98% as we are used to have (if we do not load widata with top Q it can not be recommended as a general source of info for all versions). And we find loads of problems and errors and ambiguous data in the sources we use from our authorities (besides typing errors in wp). No one has ever scrutinized this official data as we Wikipedians are doing now. And just for the basic 10000 entities, it will take our group of five-six up to a year to get this right 2.before we then load data in Wikidata we must have identified the correct properties and in many cases get new ones in place. It is just a few week since it was possible to enter populations, and an important property like geoshape is far away yet. And for the new property unique for our project we have to work through the wikidata defintionprocess, that can easily take 6-9 month for a single property, All of this must of course be ready before we start the actual loading. 3.The actual load in wikidata is then quite straight forward (by bot). But to make use of data in Wikidata we need to have new templates in place in our language version. And here we find we need for many dataitems to have modules written in Lua in order for the data to be handled in the template in order to present data correct in the articles 4.After loading wikidata we need to work through our articles for them to base their data on wikidata. Some of this is done without problems with using templates and going through the articles with bots. But we expect also there will be a need in several articles to make manual adjustment to get all correct (like factdata residing in the text portion that should now be taken from Wikdata) But if we come this far, our articles will be perfect and we can produce a set of software, like templetes and modules that make implementation of these data in other language versions very easy Another learning is that we actually will not be able to achieve our goal without the support of technical expertise (like knowledge in Lua, how to write datainterface to external dataproviders) . Right now we are discussing with our local chapter, if they can provide technical expertise when ours is not enough , we are after all wikipedians not tech wizards And we are missing to have colleagues on other language versions to discuss with, it is very complex. Anders Gerard Meijssen skrev 2014-02-05 12:16: Hoi, _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>