Hello,
Please allow me to elaborate on one point partially made earlier.
A good encyclopedic article can only be judged if seen by your own eyes.
Some articles are bot created, but later humans came to work on and make it
a good article with more than just serial or database information. I have
the impression that this happened a lot in the Frisian Wikipedia.
On the other hand, sometimes people let a bot write article code *outside
of Wikipedia*, and then they create the article "by hand". In this way, in
the statistics the article seems to be created by a human. Thus, a high or
low percentage of bot created articles or bot edits does not necessarily
say something about the quality or encyclopediacity (is that a word?) of a
Wikipedia language version.
Kind regards
Ziko
Am Sonntag, 23. Juni 2013 schrieb David Gerard :
On 23 June 2013 14:41, David Cuenca
<dacuetu(a)gmail.com <javascript:;>>
wrote:
Maybe better when the human generated content is
greater than the one
originally added by the bot. Otherwise I can imagine someone adding one
comma to each article just to make it show up in the stats...
I would say that worrying about article count rankings as much as
people are in this thread is largely missing the point, i.e. making
something that is more useful to readers than nothing at all would be,
and that (per Erik's original comment) attracts new contributors.
Article counts are way, way down the list of important considerations.
- d.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ziko van Dijk
voorzitter / president Wikimedia Nederland
deputy chair Wikimedia Chapters Association Council
Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
Postbus 167
3500 AD Utrecht
http://wikimedia.nl
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------