Hoi, You will appreciate that when text is generated and cached. It may change when additional statements are made. So it will improve as and when improved information becomes available.
As someone who knows the IT branch as well, the maintenance of data is a challenge but you will agree with me that the solution the Wikimedia Foundation has in its projects is utterly different from what we know professionally.
In what I do for Wikidata I aim to bring information that is more than can be found in a single project. For instance, the laureates of awards may have an item because of an article in "another" Wikipedia. Quite often the laureates do not have an article in any language even though the award is prestigious internationally. In this way I hope we will get to the tipping point where these discussions are only of historic interest in the same way as many discussions about the quality of Wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM
On 7 July 2015 at 13:05, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks to have summarized my position.
As speaker than more than one minor language I agree that there is no sense to inflate articles over the possibility of the small community to manage them. Not in opposition of automated generated articles but having in my hands the experience of project management of IT where the big challenge is not to produce a software but to keep it updated and efficient. Il 07/Lug/2015 12:22, "Craig Franklin" cfranklin@halonetwork.net ha scritto:
There is already a consensus on enwiki (please, hold your rotten
tomatoes)
that projects like this which have inflated article counts due to
extensive
botting rather than through having a lively community not be included on the main page. I think a lot of the comments here about a huge article count attracting communities to curate that content are somewhat disingenous, it seems that despite having lots of articles there is only one active user on Waray Wikipedia, who is responsible for more than 99%
of
total edits. As Milos has alluded to, "number of articles" is a poor metric for understanding how useful a particular project is to speakers
of
that language.
Speaking here as a speaker of a minority language myself, I understand
the
temptation of quickly creating lots of articles to have some sort of demonstrable impact, and I believe there is a place for some bot
generation
of articles on any project. But after hitting "Random" a few times on Waray, and seeing what came back, I'm not really sure how this is a more useful resource for speakers of the language than just going into
Wikidata
with the interface set to Waray. I believe the time honoured, if slower way of creating a Wikipedia, lovingly handcrafting it article by article, is far more likely to lead to a positive impact for people.
Cheers, Craig
On 7 July 2015 at 07:55, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
Indeed, as Josh points out, there are also costs (even if only
perceived
or
reputational costs) to populating a tiny Wikipedia with next to no
active
editors with hundreds of thousands of bot-generated stubs. Is having
stubs
on all French communes in Cebuano better than having nothing in
Cebuano?
Probably, yes. And by increasing pageviews (which is measurable), one increases the likelihood of "organic" conversion of readers into
editors
(which is *still* the most effective way to make Wikipedians, albeit
not
the easiest to directly control).
But, again as Josh says, that increase in *editorship* is yet to be attained. The Waray Wikipedia (btw, "Waray-Waray" is, it turns out, objectionable to Waray speakers, and is mildly derogatory) is still
largely
edited by *one* committed individual, User:JinJian[1], as the stats
plainly
show. Given that the bot was run *with* JinJian's consent, there can
be
no
objection to its operation.
As Milos suggests, there seems to be an emotional response to those Wikipedias appearing in the top 10 view. This should be divorced from those communities' sovereign decisions to run or not run the bot. If
the
top 10 inclusion truly bothers people, and there's a strong consensus
that
Wikipedias largely populated by bot-generated stubs "should" not be included, a discussion could be had on what this view *should* mean, precisely, if not plainly the top 10 Wikipedias by article count. And whatever refined definition is agreed upon (e.g. thresholds like a
minimum
number of active editors, or some formula involving the "article depth" figure, or whatever) can then be made the basis for the list, or
indeed,
for a different list, that would be more satisfying for those who are displeased with being "under" these Wikipedias on the list.
A.
[1] http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaWAR.htm#wikipedians
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Josh Lim jamesjoshualim@yahoo.com
wrote:
I can probably speak for those communities. On the whole, the logic behind the Lsjbot experiment was simple: build it and they will come.
So far though, this hasn’t happened. We from the Tagalog Wikipedia
were
also approached for this experiment, but we know what happens when bot-generated articles are made: the community is overwhelmed. Out
of
that
fear, we declined to participate.
One of the concerns some editors in the Philippines have (and these
are
sentiments I share) is that these two Wikipedias turn us into a laughingstock, willing to increase article numbers at any cost. At
one
point, the Cebuano Wikipedia was described as a Wikipedia of French communes, not content relevant to Cebu or Cebuanos. I don’t think
we’d
like that with other Wikipedias in the Philippines or elsewhere.
Regards,
Josh
Wiadomość napisana przez WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequers@gmail.com>
w dniu 6 lip 2015, o godz. 04:52:
These are fascinating experiments, I hope that the Waray-waray and
Cebuano
communities will at some point report back to the wider community
as
to
how
this worked out. My fear is that too fast a growth rate could
overwhelm
whatever community we have in those languages leading to burn out
of
existing editors dealing with too many newbies at once, my
suspicion
is
that this will vary by language depending on such variables as the
ratio
of
PC users to smartphone users, and the ease with which editors can
access
the necessary character sets.
We have long known that bot creation of stubs that are of interest
to
speakers of a language is a way to recruit readers, and that some
readers
become editors. What I think we don't yet know is the maximum
growth
rate
that a wiki community can cope with.
There is also a sustainability angle, though hopefully we can
mitigate
that
by bot replacing of articles where the source has changed but they
haven't
been edited on the Cebuano or Waray-waray Wikipedias. Otherwise
within
a
decade we could have pedias that look very dated, for example
various
record holders whose articles in other languages show their records
have
been surpassed, and villages
WereSpielChequers _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
JAMES JOSHUA G. LIM Bachelor of Arts in Political Science Class of 2013, Ateneo de Manila University Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines
jamesjoshualim@yahoo.com mailto:jamesjoshualim@yahoo.com | +63
(915)
321-7582 Facebook/Twitter: akiestar | Wikimedia: Sky Harbor http://about.me/josh.lim http://about.me/josh.lim _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe