See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#User:Fri...
A bot has been approved to create articles on every place in the world which doesn't have an article yet, predicted to be about 2 million new stub articles.
There is some question as to whether or not this is a good idea, as it would double our number of articles within a few months, perhaps mess up Special:Random, and most of the new articles would forever be tiny stubs. There are suggestions that perhaps the bot could be limited to towns of a certain population size, or perhaps the tiny villages could be combined into lists instead of each having its own article.
I'm not arguing for or against this, just bringing it up here. If there are any concerns, speak now before the bot begins.
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 6:36 PM, bobolozo bobolozo@yahoo.com wrote:
There is some question as to whether or not this is a good idea, as it would double our number of articles within a few months, perhaps mess up Special:Random, and most of the new articles would forever be tiny stubs.
Deja vu anyone?
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 4:36 AM, bobolozo bobolozo@yahoo.com wrote:
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#User:Fri...
A bot has been approved to create articles on every place in the world which doesn't have an article yet, predicted to be about 2 million new stub articles.
There is some question as to whether or not this is a good idea, as it would double our number of articles within a few months, perhaps mess up Special:Random, and most of the new articles would forever be tiny stubs. There are suggestions that perhaps the bot could be limited to towns of a certain population size, or perhaps the tiny villages could be combined into lists instead of each having its own article.
I'm not arguing for or against this, just bringing it up here. If there are any concerns, speak now before the bot begins.
If you're going to do it, make maximal use of templates this time, and have a few sample articles open for fixing and approval beforehand. The Rambot template contains a lot of flaws that can't be fixed except by a bot.
That said, I'd probably oppose this bot if I cared enough to come up with an opinion.
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 4:36 AM, bobolozo bobolozo@yahoo.com wrote:
If there are any concerns, speak now before the bot begins.
Commenting specifically on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fritzpoll/GeoBot/Example, the reference is not detailed enough, and the external links for the map should go to a more neutral locations (geohack, not maplandia and encarta).
On 2008.06.01 01:36:44 -0700, bobolozo bobolozo@yahoo.com scribbled 0.8K characters:
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#User:Fri...
A bot has been approved to create articles on every place in the world which doesn't have an article yet, predicted to be about 2 million new stub articles.
There is some question as to whether or not this is a good idea, as it would double our number of articles within a few months, perhaps mess up Special:Random, and most of the new articles would forever be tiny stubs. There are suggestions that perhaps the bot could be limited to towns of a certain population size, or perhaps the tiny villages could be combined into lists instead of each having its own article.
I'm not arguing for or against this, just bringing it up here. If there are any concerns, speak now before the bot begins.
We did fine absorbing the articles created by Rambot (which was at least a doubling in articles, IIRC, which is more than proposed here, as we currently have 2.3 million articles); I sometimes go Special:Random spelunking, and all the obviously Rambot-sourced article seem to have been modified and updated since.
-- gwern lynch Astra wetsu imagery shelter SEIDM bombs Sayeret SADCC Bellcore