Am 17.06.2013 16:01, schrieb Jan Ainali: i don´t want to repeat all those arguments already quoted (lennard already mentioned achim raschkas criticism, which i fully agree with), since what happend, already happend, and will unstoppably happen in the future. but i would say first of all the strategic goal is not to contribute hundreds of mistakes a day. just to take the 1 millionth article Erysichton elaborata: after an advice on the talk page a HUMAN added, that the species is probably synonymized with Erysichton palmyra. so far, so good. but even this correction is not enough. in 2010 the genus erysichton was redefined and a new genus, jameela was described. both taxa now desrcibed as in sv.wikipedia are invalid. so just concerning this tiny tiny group of articles, there is already a bunch of mistakes, the bot copied out of outdated databases. wouldn´t be a big deal, if somebody mentioned that the articles sticked to the old view. but that´s something a bot can´t handle. so how reliable is the rest of the articles? a bot can be a convenient helper for authors, who know, how to handle it, as it seems has happened with the creation of the articles about swedish lakes (i´m no expert with that though). but it is a desastrous tool for our whole movement, if you create hundreds of thousands (!) articles, without the slightest idea, how to handle the contradictions, that will appear doubtlessly? it´s a sad thing, that you mention quality and this action in one centence... truly utterly disappointed encyclopedic greetings, kurt -- Mag. Kurt Kulac, Obmann _______________________ Wikimedia Österreich Gesellschaft zur Förderung freien Wissens Siebensterngasse 25/15, 1070 Wien www.wikimedia.at +43 664 4128615