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 this is not a real impact ! Thanks, GerardM On 6 July 2015 at 10:20, Ilario Valdelli &lt;valdelli(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: "real" wrote: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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 information. Arguably it is not needed to save them as articles because it is possible to generate them on the fly based on information from Wikidata and cache the results but that is EXACTLY the kind of technology that would bring missing information to any Wikipedia without distorting the number of articles for people who only care about editors and editing. It is EXACTLY the kind of technology I would welcome the WMF to explore. Thanks, GerardM On 6 July 2015 at 11:09, Ilario Valdelli &lt;valdelli(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: case its view) must shows little work.[2] ?subject=unsubscribe> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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 best we can. Our best is NOT sitting on our hands keeping information that is available to ourselves for secondary reasons. Yes, we can write articles and yes they may be better but as long as we do not provide information we do a half arsed job. A job that is qualitatively and quantitatively inferior. Thanks, GerardM On 6 July 2015 at 11:42, Ilario Valdelli &lt;valdelli(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: tools service possible cache this of demonstration evaluations by a wrote: without a salvador1983(a)gmail.com happened ?subject=unsubscribe> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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 best we can. Our best is NOT sitting on our hands keeping information that is available to ourselves for secondary reasons. Yes, we can write articles and yes they may be better but as long as we do not provide information we do a half arsed job. A job that is qualitatively and quantitatively inferior. Thanks,

From the perspective of a bot writer, and who proposed the automatic creation of a few thousand drafts for missing English Wikipedia articles for registered monuments in Wales (the proposal was resisted), I would rather see auto-creation tools limited to

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 Wikipedia is done in a right manner and are at the service of the overall communities. Regards On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: encyclopaedia. final EXACTLY the "dissemination". I and same of inside thread it.wiki ?subject=unsubscribe> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario> Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli <https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli> Twitter: Ilario Valdelli <https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli> Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469 Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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 wikis. I'm telling this to emphasize I'm not against bot-creating articles in general but I agree this is not the way we build Wikipedia. We create articles of Wikipedia for people to read. Even if your articles has a very low quality eventually someone will improve it [1] but articles that have reader. How many of these articles will be read by people? Honestly I think 100K out of the 1M was enough. That's why we created articles by bot in broad topics in Persian Wikipedia (minor planets 16K, villages of Iran 70K, national heritages of Iran 20K, cities of the world ~20K, chemical compounds 10-20K) because 20K articles in same topic attracts less then half of reader comparing to combination of 10K in one topic and 10K in another topic. [1]: IPs can't create article, we enabled it once, disaster. but they can edit articles (low-quality-bot-created articles) and it attracts to add something and after a while they become a regular editor. That's why Persian Wikipedia has one of the highest growth rate in number of users and active users. So bot-created articles can be useful but not this way. Best On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com wrote: 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 EXACTLY > the kind of technology I would welcome the WMF to explore. > Thanks, > GerardM > On 6 July 2015 at 11:09, Ilario Valdelli &lt;valdelli(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > 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 that Wikipedia can renounce to one of > its > > pilaster. > > > In my opinion the impact of Waray Waray or of Cebuan is a demonstration > > that any "strange" language can have a big traffic if it is placed in the > > first places of the ranking because it will be best ranked in search > > engines. > > > But an impact is something that produces "effects" and "dissemination". I > > don't see impact because the bot has increased only one measure (page > view) > > and nothing else. > > > If the impact must be produced with SEO, the parameters of evaluations > must > > change. > > > It is different when a bot is running in an encyclopedia supported by a > > "mature" community, because the articles will be improved in quality and > > will generate more and more effects. > > > Regards > > > > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Gerard Meijssen < > > gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; > > wrote: > > > > 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 of > > > speakers. Please explain how this is not a real impact ! > > > Thanks, > > > GerardM > > > > > On 6 July 2015 at 10:20, Ilario Valdelli &lt;valdelli(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > > > > > 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 &lt;salvador1983(a)gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > > I just I noticed that Cebuano and Waray-waray Wikipedia are inside thread > > > > > announcing this? > > > > > > > > > Waray-waray is now the 6th place and Cebuano has surpassed it.wiki > > and > > > > > es.wiki and gained the place number 8, mainly due to Lsjbot > work.[2] > > > > > Definitely a milestone in Wikipedia and bots history. > > > > > > > > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias > > > > > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lsjbot > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > *Salvador Alcántar* > > > > > *@salvador_alc* > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > > > Unsubscribe: > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Ilario Valdelli > > > > Wikimedia CH > > > > Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens > > > > Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre > > > > Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera > > > > Switzerland - 8008 Zürich > > > > Wikipedia: Ilario <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario> > > > > Skype: valdelli > > > > Facebook: Ilario Valdelli <https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli> > > > > Twitter: Ilario Valdelli <https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli> > > > > Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli < > > > http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469 > > > > > > > > Tel: +41764821371 > > > > http://www.wikimedia.ch > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > -- > > Ilario Valdelli > > Wikimedia CH > > Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens > > Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre > > Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera > > Switzerland - 8008 Zürich > > Wikipedia: Ilario <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario> > > Skype: valdelli > > Facebook: Ilario Valdelli <https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli> > > Twitter: Ilario Valdelli <https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli> > > Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli < > http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469 > > > > Tel: +41764821371 > > http://www.wikimedia.ch > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> -- Amir _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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 information. Arguably it is not needed to save them as articles because it is possible to generate them on the fly based on information from Wikidata and cache the results but that is EXACTLY the kind of technology that would bring missing information to any Wikipedia without distorting the number of articles for people who only care about editors and editing. It is EXACTLY the kind of technology I would welcome the WMF to explore. Thanks, GerardM On 6 July 2015 at 11:09, Ilario Valdelli &lt;valdelli(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > 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 that Wikipedia can renounce to one of its > pilaster. > > In my opinion the impact of Waray Waray or of Cebuan is a demonstration > that any "strange" language can have a big traffic if it is placed in the > first places of the ranking because it will be best ranked in search > engines. > > But an impact is something that produces "effects" and "dissemination". I > don't see impact because the bot has increased only one measure (page view) > and nothing else. > > If the impact must be produced with SEO, the parameters of evaluations must > change. > > It is different when a bot is running in an encyclopedia supported by a > "mature" community, because the articles will be improved in quality and > will generate more and more effects. > > Regards

Hey :) There has been a lot of talk about Wikidata in this thread. We are indeed going to work on a solution. Lucie will be working on this project as part of her bachelor thesis starting in August. It is called article placeholder. You can read more and give input at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Article_placeholder_input and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T99895

Hey :) There has been a lot of talk about Wikidata in this thread. We are indeed going to work on a solution. Lucie will be working on this project as part of her bachelor thesis starting in August. It is called article placeholder. You can read more and give input at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Article_placeholder_input and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T99895

On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Lydia Pintscher &lt;lydia.pintscher(a)wikimedia.de&gt; wrote: Another interesting overview that is now easily possible thanks to Wikidata: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Statistics/Wikipedia shows you what kind of topics different Wikipedias cover. The differences are enlightening.