Today is apparently spelling day, it appears that a number of users are running bots to fix spelling errors. I believe this practice should be stopped; first off, it is a waste of time to correct spelling on articles which are far from finished. But more importantly, the bots are going to write over words which are supposed to be spelled a certain way, I know that there are quotes with deliberately misspelled words in them. Spelling day is a bad idea.
(cross-posting to general list, because policy affects all languages)
On Saturday 22 November 2003 11:01, Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
Today is apparently spelling day, it appears that a number of users are running bots to fix spelling errors. I believe this practice should be stopped; first off, it is a waste of time to correct spelling on articles which are far from finished. But more importantly, the bots are going to write over words which are supposed to be spelled a certain way, I know that there are quotes with deliberately misspelled words in them. Spelling day is a bad idea.
I disagree that correcting spelling errors in principle is a bad idea because articles are not finished. This is nonsense, articles on wikipedia are never finished - that doesn't mean they should contain spelling errors. You're right however on the spelling bots: These things are dangerous, and should be avoided. Fixing spelling errors on wikipedia is a massive task. Either we disallow bots for this purpose or we introduce a guideline that each spelling error has to have been looked at by the person running the bot first, and then approved for editing by the bot. I know that this is not directly enforceable, but most policies on wikipedia are not. If someone makes a "spelling correction" with a bot where the spelling was correct in the context, that shows that they have not actually looked at that particular instance. Appropriate measures can then be taken. WDYT?
Best, Sascha Noyes
I disagree that correcting spelling errors in principle is a bad idea because articles are not finished. This is nonsense, articles on wikipedia are never finished - that doesn't mean they should contain spelling errors. You're right however on the spelling bots: These things are dangerous, and should be avoided. Fixing spelling errors on wikipedia is a massive task. Either we disallow bots for this purpose or we introduce a guideline that each spelling error has to have been looked at by the person running the bot first, and then approved for editing by the bot. I know that this is not directly enforceable, but most policies on wikipedia are not. If someone makes a "spelling correction" with a bot where the spelling was correct in the context, that shows that they have not actually looked at that particular instance. Appropriate measures can then be taken. WDYT?
I don't know how hard that'd be, but couldn't the bots ignore (just report) mispelled words between quotes? ''like that'' or "that"? If the mispelling (talking about common mistakes here, like taht, not words which can have different spelling/meanings :) is intended, it is probably meaning something, so the word or expression is probably emphazised (hum, what's the spelling? :)) to show, in the article itself, that the mispelling IS intended.
Best, Sascha Noyes
Regards Nicolas
Someone wrote:
I don't know how hard that'd be, but couldn't the bots ignore (just report) mispelled words between quotes? ''like that'' or "that"? If the mispelling (talking about common mistakes here, like taht, not words which can have different spelling/meanings :) is intended, it is probably meaning something, so the word or expression is probably emphazised (hum, what's the spelling? :)) to show, in the article itself, that the mispelling IS intended.
Bots correcting spelling mistakes are an unfortunate idea. It's just a guess, but I believe they'd do more harm than good. If you look at the edit history of http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_verbs_in_English_consisting_of_Latin_ prefix_and_Latin_verb you can see how hard it can be to correct spelling mistakes manually. Any form of automated correction would just cause confusion.
A MUCH better way would be not to make spelling mistakes in the first place. I honestly believe it can be done.
KF