Tell them Sandister, I love journalists trained by Brits, far better than those trained by the Yankees.
More respects to actual human editors by the way...
Oral
www.about.me/oralofori On Feb 26, 2014 2:43 PM, "Sandister Tei" sandistertei@gmail.com wrote:
Statistically maybe.
In terms of maintenance, absolutely.
But in terms of starting articles and updating them plus meaningful edits that only human intelligence can do, the bots can't claim that.
Bot edits may form the majority statistically. But the story and topical edits that shape articles, is a human thing.
The article was written by a journalist. And Oral you know our people. Suddenly experts on subjects they know nothing about, just to put out stories. On Feb 26, 2014 5:33 PM, "Oral Ofori" oralofori@gmail.com wrote:
I guess they failed to count edits in developing countries, mostly in Africa... where people like Rexford Nkansah amd Oarabile Mumdongo among many others are making hard core edits by hand and mind. Pretty interesting read though:
http://www.newsweek.com/wikipedia-edited-bots-thats-good-thing-230234
Oral
www.about.me/oralofori
Wikimedia-GH mailing list Wikimedia-GH@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-gh
Wikimedia-GH mailing list Wikimedia-GH@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-gh