Lsjbot has now completed its run of generating articles for all species, with 310 000 on plants, making the total number generated above 1 300 000 (source used: Catalogue of Life). With Naskobot, having earlier generated some 85 000 articles on Swedish lakes and French communes etc., the total botgenerated articles on svwp are now 1,4 M
The botgenerating efforts have received overwhelmingly positive feedback from the svwp community, with comments like: *for editors it has become more stimulating writing new articles on related subjects. When we write of a place in Sweden we know that all mentioned lakes have articles, making the article better and more correct (no lakes mentioned are spelled incorrectly any longer). Also photo safaris are more fun when all lakes, even very small ones, are relevant to take photos of and include in articles *experts are more attracted participating when they are guided to the stub from Google. Also we get feedback it is much easier to enter information on Wikipedia when the base skeleton is there already (taxobox, category, links in wikidata, picture, base sourceref). We see an increasing number of University classes in biology given he assignment to write (expand) articles on (not so known) species
We are also gladdened by the hard numbers. Reader accesses show a healthy increase even from our already high number. And a trend of a slight decrease of editors has now turned into an increase. We can not say for certain why and it could be temporary but we believe the botgenerated articles has a part of this positive development.
Encouraged by this, we will now start what we call Bot Academy. A dozen of our experienced editors will, with the support from WMSE, learn more of running bots. First by sessions on basics, common knowledge stuff, in order for us to be able to use bot as a complement in our editing efforts. And after that we will have sessions for advanced use, taking in the learning from Lsjbot and Naskobot, in order to see if also we can find areas where we from excellent sources can generate articles.
For 2015 we are contemplating the following botgenerating efforts *lsj (sverker) will support other versions interested to run Lsjbot. He is now in discussion with Farsi and Arabic wp, where there are some interesting technical challenges related to the different alphabeticscript *we will scan best practices of bot generation on other versions (it, nl, id, vt, serbocroatia, farsi, ru etc) (it seems we have nothing to learn of this from the biggest seven...) *lsj will look into using the database used by Swedish libraries, with info of authors and books. Would it be feasible to generate articles on authors? *for myself I am continuing my initiative with the aim of fully integrate 100000 article of Swedish geographic entities with wikidata, in order to by the end to generate, if wanted, up to 100000 articles related to Swedish geography on 200 other versions. There is a lot needed of quality improvement of the articles first and also the Wikidata must get better before this can work, but perhaps it will be possible to get this going for a subset of articles in 2015 even if the full set will take some years longer before being ready to deploy
Anders for examples, press "slumpartikel" (random artiicle) on https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Huvudsida
Impressive piece of work. I agree, it is a lot easier to expand on an article with a well formatted stub than to create a new one if you are not familiar with the process. I would like to see this procedure extended to other Wikipedias, including en: for classes of article for which there is consensus that an article should exist for each example, like for species. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Anders Wennersten Sent: 17 September 2014 04:36 AM To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Lsjbot+Bot Acadeny
Lsjbot has now completed its run of generating articles for all species, with 310 000 on plants, making the total number generated above 1 300 000 (source used: Catalogue of Life). With Naskobot, having earlier generated some 85 000 articles on Swedish lakes and French communes etc., the total botgenerated articles on svwp are now 1,4 M
The botgenerating efforts have received overwhelmingly positive feedback from the svwp community, with comments like: *for editors it has become more stimulating writing new articles on related subjects. When we write of a place in Sweden we know that all mentioned lakes have articles, making the article better and more correct (no lakes mentioned are spelled incorrectly any longer). Also photo safaris are more fun when all lakes, even very small ones, are relevant to take photos of and include in articles *experts are more attracted participating when they are guided to the stub from Google. Also we get feedback it is much easier to enter information on Wikipedia when the base skeleton is there already (taxobox, category, links in wikidata, picture, base sourceref). We see an increasing number of University classes in biology given he assignment to write (expand) articles on (not so known) species
We are also gladdened by the hard numbers. Reader accesses show a healthy increase even from our already high number. And a trend of a slight decrease of editors has now turned into an increase. We can not say for certain why and it could be temporary but we believe the botgenerated articles has a part of this positive development.
Encouraged by this, we will now start what we call Bot Academy. A dozen of our experienced editors will, with the support from WMSE, learn more of running bots. First by sessions on basics, common knowledge stuff, in order for us to be able to use bot as a complement in our editing efforts. And after that we will have sessions for advanced use, taking in the learning from Lsjbot and Naskobot, in order to see if also we can find areas where we from excellent sources can generate articles.
For 2015 we are contemplating the following botgenerating efforts *lsj (sverker) will support other versions interested to run Lsjbot. He is now in discussion with Farsi and Arabic wp, where there are some interesting technical challenges related to the different alphabeticscript *we will scan best practices of bot generation on other versions (it, nl, id, vt, serbocroatia, farsi, ru etc) (it seems we have nothing to learn of this from the biggest seven...) *lsj will look into using the database used by Swedish libraries, with info of authors and books. Would it be feasible to generate articles on authors? *for myself I am continuing my initiative with the aim of fully integrate 100000 article of Swedish geographic entities with wikidata, in order to by the end to generate, if wanted, up to 100000 articles related to Swedish geography on 200 other versions. There is a lot needed of quality improvement of the articles first and also the Wikidata must get better before this can work, but perhaps it will be possible to get this going for a subset of articles in 2015 even if the full set will take some years longer before being ready to deploy
Anders for examples, press "slumpartikel" (random artiicle) on https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Huvudsida
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4015/8223 - Release Date: 09/16/14
Many years ago... on en.wp, RamBot created thousands and thousands of articles about towns and cities in the United States. Controversial at the time but ultimately successful in 'seeding' the content in exactly the way that Anders described. Whenever I go to do some New Pages Patrol on en.wp these days, it seems (purely from personal experience) that there are lots of articles about places in India and south asia being written. It's very difficult to assess these for duplicates, notability, verifiability... but there's clearly a demand for writing these topics that bots could help with. For things that have "inherent notability", such as towns registered in a national census or those done by LsjBot, I'd love to see more bot-creation going on.
wittylama.com Peace, love & metadata
On 17 September 2014 08:22, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
Impressive piece of work. I agree, it is a lot easier to expand on an article with a well formatted stub than to create a new one if you are not familiar with the process. I would like to see this procedure extended to other Wikipedias, including en: for classes of article for which there is consensus that an article should exist for each example, like for species. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Anders Wennersten Sent: 17 September 2014 04:36 AM To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Lsjbot+Bot Acadeny
Lsjbot has now completed its run of generating articles for all species, with 310 000 on plants, making the total number generated above 1 300 000 (source used: Catalogue of Life). With Naskobot, having earlier generated some 85 000 articles on Swedish lakes and French communes etc., the total botgenerated articles on svwp are now 1,4 M
The botgenerating efforts have received overwhelmingly positive feedback from the svwp community, with comments like: *for editors it has become more stimulating writing new articles on related subjects. When we write of a place in Sweden we know that all mentioned lakes have articles, making the article better and more correct (no lakes mentioned are spelled incorrectly any longer). Also photo safaris are more fun when all lakes, even very small ones, are relevant to take photos of and include in articles *experts are more attracted participating when they are guided to the stub from Google. Also we get feedback it is much easier to enter information on Wikipedia when the base skeleton is there already (taxobox, category, links in wikidata, picture, base sourceref). We see an increasing number of University classes in biology given he assignment to write (expand) articles on (not so known) species
We are also gladdened by the hard numbers. Reader accesses show a healthy increase even from our already high number. And a trend of a slight decrease of editors has now turned into an increase. We can not say for certain why and it could be temporary but we believe the botgenerated articles has a part of this positive development.
Encouraged by this, we will now start what we call Bot Academy. A dozen of our experienced editors will, with the support from WMSE, learn more of running bots. First by sessions on basics, common knowledge stuff, in order for us to be able to use bot as a complement in our editing efforts. And after that we will have sessions for advanced use, taking in the learning from Lsjbot and Naskobot, in order to see if also we can find areas where we from excellent sources can generate articles.
For 2015 we are contemplating the following botgenerating efforts *lsj (sverker) will support other versions interested to run Lsjbot. He is now in discussion with Farsi and Arabic wp, where there are some interesting technical challenges related to the different alphabeticscript *we will scan best practices of bot generation on other versions (it, nl, id, vt, serbocroatia, farsi, ru etc) (it seems we have nothing to learn of this from the biggest seven...) *lsj will look into using the database used by Swedish libraries, with info of authors and books. Would it be feasible to generate articles on authors? *for myself I am continuing my initiative with the aim of fully integrate 100000 article of Swedish geographic entities with wikidata, in order to by the end to generate, if wanted, up to 100000 articles related to Swedish geography on 200 other versions. There is a lot needed of quality improvement of the articles first and also the Wikidata must get better before this can work, but perhaps it will be possible to get this going for a subset of articles in 2015 even if the full set will take some years longer before being ready to deploy
Anders for examples, press "slumpartikel" (random artiicle) on https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Huvudsida
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4015/8223 - Release Date: 09/16/14
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I think this is great news. Can't wait to see what comes out of the "Bot Academy". I love the name too!
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
Many years ago... on en.wp, RamBot created thousands and thousands of articles about towns and cities in the United States. Controversial at the time but ultimately successful in 'seeding' the content in exactly the way that Anders described. Whenever I go to do some New Pages Patrol on en.wp these days, it seems (purely from personal experience) that there are lots of articles about places in India and south asia being written. It's very difficult to assess these for duplicates, notability, verifiability... but there's clearly a demand for writing these topics that bots could help with. For things that have "inherent notability", such as towns registered in a national census or those done by LsjBot, I'd love to see more bot-creation going on.
wittylama.com Peace, love & metadata
On 17 September 2014 08:22, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
Impressive piece of work. I agree, it is a lot easier to expand on an article with a well formatted stub than to create a new one if you are
not
familiar with the process. I would like to see this procedure extended to other Wikipedias, including en: for classes of article for which there
is
consensus that an article should exist for each example, like for
species.
Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Anders Wennersten Sent: 17 September 2014 04:36 AM To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Lsjbot+Bot Acadeny
Lsjbot has now completed its run of generating articles for all species, with 310 000 on plants, making the total number generated above 1 300 000 (source used: Catalogue of Life). With Naskobot, having earlier generated some 85 000 articles on Swedish lakes and French communes etc., the total botgenerated articles on svwp are now 1,4 M
The botgenerating efforts have received overwhelmingly positive feedback from the svwp community, with comments like: *for editors it has become more stimulating writing new articles on related subjects. When we write of a place in Sweden we know that all mentioned lakes have articles, making the article better and more correct (no lakes mentioned are spelled incorrectly any longer). Also photo
safaris
are more fun when all lakes, even very small ones, are relevant to take photos of and include in articles *experts are more attracted participating when they are guided to the stub from Google. Also we get feedback it is much easier to enter information on Wikipedia when the
base
skeleton is there already (taxobox, category, links in wikidata, picture, base sourceref). We see an increasing number of University classes in biology given he assignment to write (expand) articles on (not so known) species
We are also gladdened by the hard numbers. Reader accesses show a healthy increase even from our already high number. And a trend of a slight decrease of editors has now turned into an increase. We can not say for certain why and it could be temporary but we believe the botgenerated articles has a part of this positive development.
Encouraged by this, we will now start what we call Bot Academy. A dozen
of
our experienced editors will, with the support from WMSE, learn more of running bots. First by sessions on basics, common knowledge stuff, in
order
for us to be able to use bot as a complement in our editing efforts. And after that we will have sessions for advanced use, taking in the learning from Lsjbot and Naskobot, in order to see if also we can find areas
where
we from excellent sources can generate articles.
For 2015 we are contemplating the following botgenerating efforts *lsj (sverker) will support other versions interested to run Lsjbot. He is now in discussion with Farsi and Arabic wp, where there are some interesting technical challenges related to the different alphabeticscript *we will scan best practices of bot generation on other versions (it, nl, id, vt, serbocroatia, farsi, ru etc) (it seems we have nothing to learn of this from the biggest seven...) *lsj will look into using the database used by Swedish libraries, with info of authors and books. Would it be feasible
to
generate articles on authors? *for myself I am continuing my initiative with the aim of fully integrate 100000 article of Swedish geographic entities with wikidata, in order to by the end to generate, if wanted, up to 100000 articles related to Swedish geography on 200 other versions. There is a lot needed of quality improvement of the articles first and also the Wikidata must get better before this can work, but perhaps it will be possible to get this going
for
a subset of articles in 2015 even if the full set will take some years longer before being ready to deploy
Anders for examples, press "slumpartikel" (random artiicle) on https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Huvudsida
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4015/8223 - Release Date: 09/16/14
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 17 September 2014 03:36, Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se wrote:
Lsjbot
You're doing great work - keep it up!
*lsj will look into using the database used by Swedish libraries, with info of authors and books. Would it be feasible to generate articles on authors?
If you're creating biographies of people, please be sure to include the local equivalent of the {{Authority control}} template:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Authority_control
For the Swedish project, that would be:
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mall:Auktoritetsdata
which was only recently created. If you are about to do so on a project in another language, with no version of that template, please let me know in good time, so that we can set one up.
The template pulls values from Wikidata, so you don't need to add values to each article, just the bare template. However, if your subjects are new to Wikidata/Wikipedia, you can of course add their authority control values to Wikidata. Note that the Swedish LIBRIS system:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIBRIS
is catered for.
While not relevant for bot-created articles, bear in mind also that the template can be placed on user pages, for editors who are in authority control databases, including ORCID, for which they can self-register. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ORCID
Again, if you're working on a project which uses this template, but which does not yet support ORCID, please let me know. (*stares at DE, FR & IT Wikipedias*)
Thanks for the helpful feedback on my mail: @Peter an Liam perhaps we should replace the name "stubarticles" with "seed(ing)articles", at least for these botgenerated ones who have all the bascis in place @Jane, and besides a nice name Jan Ainali has also made a wonderful logo https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BotAcademy.svg @Andy very helpful indeed. I will make sure it will be included if Sverker goes ahead generating articles of authors from Libris
Anders
Andy Mabbett skrev 2014-09-17 18:50:
On 17 September 2014 03:36, Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se wrote:
Lsjbot
You're doing great work - keep it up!
*lsj will look into using the database used by Swedish libraries, with info of authors and books. Would it be feasible to generate articles on authors?
If you're creating biographies of people, please be sure to include the local equivalent of the {{Authority control}} template:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Authority_controlFor the Swedish project, that would be:
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mall:Auktoritetsdatawhich was only recently created. If you are about to do so on a project in another language, with no version of that template, please let me know in good time, so that we can set one up.
The template pulls values from Wikidata, so you don't need to add values to each article, just the bare template. However, if your subjects are new to Wikidata/Wikipedia, you can of course add their authority control values to Wikidata. Note that the Swedish LIBRIS system:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIBRISis catered for.
While not relevant for bot-created articles, bear in mind also that the template can be placed on user pages, for editors who are in authority control databases, including ORCID, for which they can self-register. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ORCIDAgain, if you're working on a project which uses this template, but which does not yet support ORCID, please let me know. (*stares at DE, FR & IT Wikipedias*)
Hoi, The mail by Anners REALLY deserves attention. It quotes numbers that fly in the face of conventional "wisdom" that bots are bad. Evidently, it is quite the opposite. Given the effects of the Rambot generated articles this should not be a surprise really.
Given that this subject has so prominently featured in the press, it is quite important to learn that the conventional wisdom consist only of opinions and is evidently wrong. Thanks, GerardM
On 17 September 2014 04:36, Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se wrote:
Lsjbot has now completed its run of generating articles for all species, with 310 000 on plants, making the total number generated above 1 300 000 (source used: Catalogue of Life). With Naskobot, having earlier generated some 85 000 articles on Swedish lakes and French communes etc., the total botgenerated articles on svwp are now 1,4 M
The botgenerating efforts have received overwhelmingly positive feedback from the svwp community, with comments like: *for editors it has become more stimulating writing new articles on related subjects. When we write of a place in Sweden we know that all mentioned lakes have articles, making the article better and more correct (no lakes mentioned are spelled incorrectly any longer). Also photo safaris are more fun when all lakes, even very small ones, are relevant to take photos of and include in articles *experts are more attracted participating when they are guided to the stub from Google. Also we get feedback it is much easier to enter information on Wikipedia when the base skeleton is there already (taxobox, category, links in wikidata, picture, base sourceref). We see an increasing number of University classes in biology given he assignment to write (expand) articles on (not so known) species
We are also gladdened by the hard numbers. Reader accesses show a healthy increase even from our already high number. And a trend of a slight decrease of editors has now turned into an increase. We can not say for certain why and it could be temporary but we believe the botgenerated articles has a part of this positive development.
Encouraged by this, we will now start what we call Bot Academy. A dozen of our experienced editors will, with the support from WMSE, learn more of running bots. First by sessions on basics, common knowledge stuff, in order for us to be able to use bot as a complement in our editing efforts. And after that we will have sessions for advanced use, taking in the learning from Lsjbot and Naskobot, in order to see if also we can find areas where we from excellent sources can generate articles.
For 2015 we are contemplating the following botgenerating efforts *lsj (sverker) will support other versions interested to run Lsjbot. He is now in discussion with Farsi and Arabic wp, where there are some interesting technical challenges related to the different alphabeticscript *we will scan best practices of bot generation on other versions (it, nl, id, vt, serbocroatia, farsi, ru etc) (it seems we have nothing to learn of this from the biggest seven...) *lsj will look into using the database used by Swedish libraries, with info of authors and books. Would it be feasible to generate articles on authors? *for myself I am continuing my initiative with the aim of fully integrate 100000 article of Swedish geographic entities with wikidata, in order to by the end to generate, if wanted, up to 100000 articles related to Swedish geography on 200 other versions. There is a lot needed of quality improvement of the articles first and also the Wikidata must get better before this can work, but perhaps it will be possible to get this going for a subset of articles in 2015 even if the full set will take some years longer before being ready to deploy
Anders for examples, press "slumpartikel" (random artiicle) on https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Huvudsida
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
This is wonderful news, Anders. It made me really happy to read this. Thanks to everyone who worked to make this happen!
rachel
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Anders Wennersten <mail@anderswennersten.se
wrote:
Lsjbot has now completed its run of generating articles for all species, with 310 000 on plants, making the total number generated above 1 300 000 (source used: Catalogue of Life). With Naskobot, having earlier generated some 85 000 articles on Swedish lakes and French communes etc., the total botgenerated articles on svwp are now 1,4 M
The botgenerating efforts have received overwhelmingly positive feedback from the svwp community, with comments like: *for editors it has become more stimulating writing new articles on related subjects. When we write of a place in Sweden we know that all mentioned lakes have articles, making the article better and more correct (no lakes mentioned are spelled incorrectly any longer). Also photo safaris are more fun when all lakes, even very small ones, are relevant to take photos of and include in articles *experts are more attracted participating when they are guided to the stub from Google. Also we get feedback it is much easier to enter information on Wikipedia when the base skeleton is there already (taxobox, category, links in wikidata, picture, base sourceref). We see an increasing number of University classes in biology given he assignment to write (expand) articles on (not so known) species
We are also gladdened by the hard numbers. Reader accesses show a healthy increase even from our already high number. And a trend of a slight decrease of editors has now turned into an increase. We can not say for certain why and it could be temporary but we believe the botgenerated articles has a part of this positive development.
Encouraged by this, we will now start what we call Bot Academy. A dozen of our experienced editors will, with the support from WMSE, learn more of running bots. First by sessions on basics, common knowledge stuff, in order for us to be able to use bot as a complement in our editing efforts. And after that we will have sessions for advanced use, taking in the learning from Lsjbot and Naskobot, in order to see if also we can find areas where we from excellent sources can generate articles.
For 2015 we are contemplating the following botgenerating efforts *lsj (sverker) will support other versions interested to run Lsjbot. He is now in discussion with Farsi and Arabic wp, where there are some interesting technical challenges related to the different alphabeticscript *we will scan best practices of bot generation on other versions (it, nl, id, vt, serbocroatia, farsi, ru etc) (it seems we have nothing to learn of this from the biggest seven...) *lsj will look into using the database used by Swedish libraries, with info of authors and books. Would it be feasible to generate articles on authors? *for myself I am continuing my initiative with the aim of fully integrate 100000 article of Swedish geographic entities with wikidata, in order to by the end to generate, if wanted, up to 100000 articles related to Swedish geography on 200 other versions. There is a lot needed of quality improvement of the articles first and also the Wikidata must get better before this can work, but perhaps it will be possible to get this going for a subset of articles in 2015 even if the full set will take some years longer before being ready to deploy
Anders for examples, press "slumpartikel" (random artiicle) on https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Huvudsida
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org