Wow On 01/11/2013 08:45 AM, Anders Wennersten wrote: Very interesting! I personally think this is a good story for the Wikimedia Blog. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Blog/Guidelines In the meantime: News section at https://www.mediawiki.org/ http://identi.ca/notice/98949038 https://twitter.com/mediawiki/status/289786939358445568 https://www.facebook.com/MediaWikiProject/posts/146083212211559 https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/103470172168784626509/103470172168784626509/p… -- Quim Gil Technical Contributor Coordinator @ Wikimedia Foundation http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil

2013/1/11 Quim Gil <qgil(a)wikimedia.org>rg>: Story about bot-pedia - no, thanks. Human can create much more valuable content basing on various sources and this is strong advantage of Wikipedia (not short articles like in traditional paper encyclopaedias). -- Daniel // Leinad

Andrew Gray skrev 2013-01-12 11:58: We had a very lengthy dissusion of course with all the common arguments. We were and are as negative as all others to the botgeneration of articles from other language versions as was done around 2008. During our discussion we evolved the concept quite a bit (special templates, categories, messages on talk page etc). Also for us the precedence and experience from nl:wp was important We also had two successful runs in 2012, not only birds as was mentioned, but also of 30 000 articles for French communes (also with data taken from primary sources, Commons and iw links to other language versions) Anders

Federico Leva (Nemo) skrev 2013-01-15 11:02: This bot puts a template in all generated articles clearly stating it is botgenerated and text stating "/This article has been created by Lsjbot and can have language errors and/or a mildly confusing setup of illustrations. This template can be deleted after checks of content has been done/" For the botgenerated articles for birds more then half have afterward been manually reviewed. This was our major concern, that botgenerated articles must not by a reader be given the impression they are manually created. Example http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acanthochitona_arragonites The bot does a major effort translating English text, like the geographical name of the area of inhabitance for the specie. In the balance of making these translation table too big, and to skip translation when complicated, the bot now puts the complicated text on the talkpage. In the example above it is for Gulf of California. In this way the reader or the one doing the manual afterfix find the info and can make use of it. The set of categories that all bot generated articles will have, even if and after it is manually checked/corrected, is partly for general keeping track but also to be able to initiate automatic check/corrections of a special set of botgenerated articles, if a problem/error is found some time after the generating time. Also there are processes set up for the inspectors of the articles in order to easy report any questions, and get feedback it is been taken care of. If a backlog occurs of reported problems, the bot generation stops, until all is fixed (very few thing being reported by this stage). On sv:wp there are around 6-8 frequest contributers in the zoological area with 10-15 more infrequent contributers. These are very competent and are all supporting this effort with inspecting etc. Without the support of these the project would never have got off the ground Anders re the question re Xeon-cant, thanks I will forward this to Lsj. A link to Wikipecies for corresponding articles already included (of course)