Matthew Flaschen, 26/11/2013 00:21: For the purposes of all charts, please follow links. ;) https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Analytics/Metric_definitions#Bot Nemo

The Tagalog Wikipedia did not use bots, but we had editors doing it manually.  Users like Wikiboost, Booster Gold, etc. added hundreds, if not thousands, of articles in this manner, and that is not reflected in the statistics. Luckily though, this has largely stopped due to community opposition. Josh   JAMES JOSHUA G. LIM Block I1, AB Political Science Major in Global Politics, Minor in Chinese Studies Class of 2013, Ateneo de Manila University Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines Secretary (2013-2014), Wikimedia Philippines Member, Ateneo Debate Society Member, The Assembly Member, Ateneo Lingua Ars Cultura jamesjoshualim(a)yahoo.com | +63 (917) 841-5235 Facebook/Twitter: akiestar | Wikimedia: Sky Harbor http://akira123323.livejournal.com On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 8:10 AM, John Vandenberg &lt;jayvdb(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 4:50 AM, Steven Walling &lt;swalling(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: Hi Steven Indonesia language Minangkabau Wikipedia has also been using bots. The project was started early 2013, and now has 220,800 articles. Unfortunately this project, and other new projects, are not being included in Erik Zachte's reports. http://min.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedias_by_size The same team are using the same bots to add content to Indonesian Wikipedia. 100,000 new articles created in October. http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaID.htm -- John Vandenberg _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On sv:wp our main headaches has not been technical problems in bots but inconsistencies (errors) in sources. For our lakes the hydrological authorities has in some cases called a group of nearby and/or conneced lakes with a plural name, like "Pikelakes", while the mapauthorities call them different names like East Pikelake West Pikelake. And the names in the hydrological authorities database has set there for almost 100 years without anyone scrutinizing them, like he sv:wp community now does with all names and finding errors. And even if this only is relevant for far less then 1% of all generated articles it becomes around hundred in total. Many of these cases are quite complicated to fix (area of lakes, depths) and there is a debate who should fix these, the botowner (who has generated correctly from sources) or community people (who have problems finds relevant basedata), or should these be deleted or rewritten from scratch? Similar issues with articles generated by Lsjot, but here it is easier to fix manually/semiautomatic. The generation of 30000 lakes has otherwise been a huge success. *We have gone from having around 500 articles to a 60 fold increase. We have correct figure for things like length of circumsphere, depth, volume Ph-level, which is extremly hard to find manually, not to mention the exterm challage that there are examples of some 400 lakes called witht the same name, very hard to handle manually (which data goes to which article) *activities has gone up steeply related to lakes, to get photos to them, to edit things like nearby town, small island and even more to include corre links from all references to lake in other geogrphic articles *we also believe we have attracted new editors, who are happy enter data of local bathing places etc, but do not have had the comeptence to enter a lakearticle from scratch (which IS complicated) Anders Fæ skrev 2013-11-27 14:01:

Fæ skrev 2013-11-27 15:24 Small error rates are a real challenge. My experience on Commons for large bot work has been long discussions around quality complaints where the level of error was *well below 1%*. Very interesting you also mention this level of problematic articles. We has found this magnitude in two bot project and our Wikidata project, all because of some problem with source data. We find they can not be found during test rounds, as we do not know what type of problems will turn up (and the articles generated are correct in relation with the source), and it can often take months for the community to spot them (like an erroneous name for a river leaving a lake). When we entered articles manually 0,5% error level would be more then excellent, but when semiautomated 0,5% can by be seen by the community as problematic (but hardly by the Wikipedia readers). And to lower the problematic ones semimanually from 0.5 to 0,1 can sometime take as much time as the total generation effort We at sv:wp still have to come to terms with this, but I expect w at the end must live with this level of problematic articles (not necesary erronous) , and solve them case by case. We are a relative small community (1/40 of en:wp) and have to be pragmatic if we want to give our readers a lot of valuable information Anders

Hi all, In Chinese Wikipedia, there're no such bots to create lots of biological articles - Ranyv, one of my colleagues there, said that Chinese is not a language adopting the Roman alphabet, thus it is difficult to generate translation names for those species - unlike Vietnamese and others, they can use the binomial name as the article name. But there are some users use AWB to create articles for places, Taipei Metro stations, etc. As I know, in Vietnamese Wikipedia, such situation happens. I've heard that there is a Vietnamese robot user (Cheers!-bot) create lots of articles about biological species, making its article count surpassing the Chinese (and Portuguese?) one, over 750,000 articles. That sparked a small-scale debate among the Chinese Wikipedian community. Cheers,

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:46 AM, Strainu &lt;strainu10(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: This counts, since it seems that in 2012 and more recently in 2013, bot article creation has exceeded manual creations. See: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ReportCardTopWikis.htm#lang_ro Thanks for the info!

On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 4:56 AM, Gryllida &lt;gryllida(a)fastmail.fm&gt; wrote: No, we're not exploring doing bot article creation ourselves. I'm simply trying to understand differences between projects when it comes to article creation. There are some smaller communities that have relatively large levels of daily/monthly article creation, and I want to identify which ones are running bots. [Using my personal email to follow up, since it's what I usually use on mailing lists.] Steven