--- Daniel Arnold <arnomane(a)gmx.de> wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 26. Dezember 2007 22:21:10 schrieb
Luiz Augusto:
> Soundlessly, some folks are missing what are exactly Wikimedia versus local
communities issue
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Radical_clean
up_of_Volapük_Wikipedia
Once more:
* This is not about deleting vo.wikipedia
* This is not about denying the right of a Volapük
Wikipedia
This is *only* about the way choosen to create the
Volapük Wikipedia. This is
about changing this unhealthy way that severely
harms all other Wikipedias
(not only wih Interwiki spam to useless bot
articles). This is about a bad
habbit of edit cheating others have done prior.
Volapük Wikipedia simply went
to far down this road to perdition. No other
Wikipedia contains nearly 100%
bot generated content.
The protest here is that you should have no say in the
way chosen to create the Volapük Wikipedia. If
Volapük Wikipedia is valid community, then they are
free to create their project by any method that works
for them. If it is not a valid community, then the
WMF should close the project. This is a bright line.
There is no basis for outsiders to dictate how a local
community goes about it's work excepting for
violations of the foundation principles ("free as in
freedom", Neutral Point of View, "anyone can edit").
This new kind of micromanagment you have proposed has
nothing to do with a foundation principle as far as I
can tell. I personally find your proposal out of line
and if it succeeds, I agree that it will be "A
dangerous precedent".
If the issue is about bot generated articles the
principle is still that
any "person" can edit, not that any "thing" can edit. Persons can
apply
human judgement; bots can't. In a small community, when someone
introduces a bot to massively generate articles it can completely
overwhelm that community. If a member of the community objects that the
bot is slanting those articles with a particular point of view, there is
nobody with whom the articles can be discussed. The bot's manager may
not even be familiar with the detailed contents, so he is in no position
to defend it. Even with a sound and uncontroversial deletion policy the
human editors can't keep up. It's a bit like a casino insisting that
any $10,000 jackpot on the nickel slots must be paid out in nickels.
Ec