On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 15:39 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
On 03/10/06, Jake Waskett <jake(a)waskett.org>
wrote:
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 15:23 +0100, David Gerard
wrote:
> The bot would have to be semi-auto, i.e. a
human would have to look
> over the result.
What makes you say that?
(a) people will be happier if there's a human pressing the button (b)
in a crappily-formatted article, the source info may be easy for a
human to spot but hard for a robot. I just changed [[Riptides]] to
take the {{unreferenced}} off it since the ref was given as plain text
as the last paragraph. (I put that in a more standard format as well.)
Hmm. How about using a custom template, as Carl essentially suggested,
and in addition, make sure that this template explicitly states what has
happened and that it will be reviewed in due course. Also append a
suitable category so that it's very easy for volunteers to find and
review these articles.
Is transparency a good-enough solution?
Jake