Thanks for the reply.
Anders Wennersten, 15/01/2013 12:15:
Federico Leva (Nemo) skrev 2013-01-15 11:02:
Anders Wennersten, 12/01/2013 12:20:
Could you elaborate on this "evolution of the concept"? I'm not able
to see what's new, from the "titles" in parentheses.
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
Oh, sure, such warnings are customary on most bot creations nowadays.
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.
I don't know if talk page is better than a central wikiproject page with
task subpages which are usually used for such cases, but yes this is useful.
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.
This is very useful, I liked it in particular for the geograph
bot-uploads on Commons by multichill.
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
I agree, the success of such initiatives lie in how much human work
they're able to instigate and be supported from.
6-8 editors is much better than nothing. It's still a drop in the ocean
for such an amount of articles, of course: at least on it.wiki we
usually have a similar amount of checkers for something like three
orders of magnitude less articles (asteroids in recent years; Italian
municipalities in the ~2005 golden age).
Nemo