On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 10:48 -0400, Carl Peterson wrote:
On 10/3/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/10/06, Jake Waskett jake@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.)
While I agree there should probably someone reviewing the changes, a "patrol" would probably pop up whose sole reason for existence is to try to put sources on everything _or_ (and this is what I fear might be more likely) to speedy half the articles out of existence.
That's not necessarily a bad thing (depending on the article, and I hope and trust that most admins speedy responsibly), nor is it significantly different from what currently happens. The main difference is that the volunteers who do this find that they have a tool to make their task easier.
Jake