tl;dr he has his qualms, but a decent stub provides an excellent hook for new contributors.
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/06/17/swedish-wikipedia-1-million-articles/#...
- d.
I totally agree (disclaimer: I don't have a bot, but I have been actively "flooding" the engish wikipedia with artist stubs for years, and have used municipality stubs created by bots to anchor their hometowns, working places, and death towns)
2013/6/23, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
tl;dr he has his qualms, but a decent stub provides an excellent hook for new contributors.
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/06/17/swedish-wikipedia-1-million-articles/#...
- d.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
2013-06-23, 10:34, skrev Jane Darnell:
I totally agree (disclaimer: I don't have a bot, but I have been actively "flooding" the engish wikipedia with artist stubs for years, and have used municipality stubs created by bots to anchor their hometowns, working places, and death towns)
I'm hoping so too. Apart from Lsjbot, Nasko.bot has actively been producing quite substantial svwp articles on lakes for some time. They are very useful in my local/regional article work – re for example http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandsjö,_Halland
And I believe others at svwp can equally benefit from these "stubs" in their local/regional editing.
My two cents, /Per Wikipedia user Paracel63
Problem: a page with a template is it a page? I think no.
Please don't match the look & feel of a page having *some* data with an article with useful information.
The informations provided by bots may stay in few pages all together and probably the information offered by them may be more useful staying in few pages.
I am not in the opposition of the use of the bots, if these bots will have their place and the articles generated by bots are considered like *populated templates* and not like articles.
I think that a solution like this (the pages generated by bots are not included in the sum of articles), may be a really good compromise.
Are you, people running bots, open to accept this compromise? No? Ok, so you aim is not to offer a help to people who would write articles but to increase the number of your own Wikipedia.
What is the damage is the aim of these not-generated articles because there is no sense to transform the Cebuan Wikipedia in the Butterflypedia. This is the demonstration that the aim of the Lsjbot is not to help the contribution but to give visibility of a project without contributors.
Regards
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 10:24 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
tl;dr he has his qualms, but a decent stub provides an excellent hook for new contributors.
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/06/17/swedish-wikipedia-1-million-articles/#...
- d.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
2013-06-23, 12:33, skrev Ilario Valdelli:
I am not in the opposition of the use of the bots, if these bots will have their place and the articles generated by bots are considered like *populated templates* and not like articles.
I think that a solution like this (the pages generated by bots are not included in the sum of articles), may be a really good compromise.
Interesting idea. I'd be willing to accept an article counting first when non-bots have been involved. However, it's up to the local community (and those able to change the arcticle counting mechanism).
Best of wishes, /Per Wikipedia user Paracel63
Sorry. Just a clarification. I hope you mean bot-generated articles are to be excluded in the tally only as long as they remain non-humanly edited. I see no point in indefinitely excluding some articles from a global tally, as all articles regardless of creation are bound to change content and style over time.
Best of wishes, /Per
2013-06-23, 13:06, skrev Per A.J. Andersson:
2013-06-23, 12:33, skrev Ilario Valdelli:
I am not in the opposition of the use of the bots, if these bots will have their place and the articles generated by bots are considered like *populated templates* and not like articles.
I think that a solution like this (the pages generated by bots are not included in the sum of articles), may be a really good compromise.
Interesting idea. I'd be willing to accept an article counting first when non-bots have been involved. However, it's up to the local community (and those able to change the arcticle counting mechanism).
Best of wishes, /Per Wikipedia user Paracel63
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Maybe better when the human generated content is greater than the one originally added by the bot. Otherwise I can imagine someone adding one comma to each article just to make it show up in the stats...
Cheers, Micru
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Per A.J. Andersson paja@telia.com wrote:
Sorry. Just a clarification. I hope you mean bot-generated articles are to be excluded in the tally only as long as they remain non-humanly edited. I see no point in indefinitely excluding some articles from a global tally, as all articles regardless of creation are bound to change content and style over time.
Best of wishes, /Per
2013-06-23, 13:06, skrev Per A.J. Andersson:
2013-06-23, 12:33, skrev Ilario Valdelli:
I am not in the opposition of the use of the bots, if these bots will
have their place and the articles generated by bots are considered like *populated templates* and not like articles.
I think that a solution like this (the pages generated by bots are not included in the sum of articles), may be a really good compromise.
Interesting idea. I'd be willing to accept an article counting first when non-bots have been involved. However, it's up to the local community (and those able to change the arcticle counting mechanism).
Best of wishes, /Per Wikipedia user Paracel63
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On 23 June 2013 14:41, David Cuenca dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe better when the human generated content is greater than the one originally added by the bot. Otherwise I can imagine someone adding one comma to each article just to make it show up in the stats...
I would say that worrying about article count rankings as much as people are in this thread is largely missing the point, i.e. making something that is more useful to readers than nothing at all would be, and that (per Erik's original comment) attracts new contributors.
Article counts are way, way down the list of important considerations.
- d.
Hello,
Please allow me to elaborate on one point partially made earlier.
A good encyclopedic article can only be judged if seen by your own eyes. Some articles are bot created, but later humans came to work on and make it a good article with more than just serial or database information. I have the impression that this happened a lot in the Frisian Wikipedia.
On the other hand, sometimes people let a bot write article code *outside of Wikipedia*, and then they create the article "by hand". In this way, in the statistics the article seems to be created by a human. Thus, a high or low percentage of bot created articles or bot edits does not necessarily say something about the quality or encyclopediacity (is that a word?) of a Wikipedia language version.
Kind regards Ziko
Am Sonntag, 23. Juni 2013 schrieb David Gerard :
On 23 June 2013 14:41, David Cuenca <dacuetu@gmail.com javascript:;> wrote:
Maybe better when the human generated content is greater than the one originally added by the bot. Otherwise I can imagine someone adding one comma to each article just to make it show up in the stats...
I would say that worrying about article count rankings as much as people are in this thread is largely missing the point, i.e. making something that is more useful to readers than nothing at all would be, and that (per Erik's original comment) attracts new contributors.
Article counts are way, way down the list of important considerations.
- d.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
These criteria do not address the quality of the article. How about a "not counted as an article" category for stub articles of all kinds, whether generated by bot or human, to be removed when the article reaches a reasonable standard of usefulness? Cheers, Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Cuenca" dacuetu@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 3:41 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Erik Zachte on bot-generated articles
Maybe better when the human generated content is greater than the one originally added by the bot. Otherwise I can imagine someone adding one comma to each article just to make it show up in the stats...
Cheers, Micru
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Per A.J. Andersson paja@telia.com wrote:
Sorry. Just a clarification. I hope you mean bot-generated articles are to be excluded in the tally only as long as they remain non-humanly edited. I see no point in indefinitely excluding some articles from a global tally, as all articles regardless of creation are bound to change content and style over time.
Best of wishes, /Per
2013-06-23, 13:06, skrev Per A.J. Andersson:
2013-06-23, 12:33, skrev Ilario Valdelli:
I am not in the opposition of the use of the bots, if these bots will
have their place and the articles generated by bots are considered like *populated templates* and not like articles.
I think that a solution like this (the pages generated by bots are not included in the sum of articles), may be a really good compromise.
Interesting idea. I'd be willing to accept an article counting first when non-bots have been involved. However, it's up to the local community (and those able to change the arcticle counting mechanism).
Best of wishes, /Per Wikipedia user Paracel63
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
I learnt yesterday that the Welsh Wicipedia does not have 'stubs'. It has 'Little Acorns' - so much nicer and more descriptive.
I've always been surprised how all the time this discussion re-appears, most of the arguments are based about in-Wikipedia discussion and not about the impact of our goal: spread free knowledge. "What about the number of articles? And the ranking? And the 'Random articles'?" and so on... when most of our users don't care about that. They care about Wikipedia having an answer when they are looking for some info, probably via Google or through a blue link. Do you really think they will notice or care if it was made by human or a bot?
I don't think bots are the solution and they will always have some particular issues, but please, focus the discussion if the content created by bots are useful or not, just like any other kind of article, and not about topics that only are important for those who love (like me) statistics and are reeeeeeeally involved on Wikipedia.
*Osmar Valdebenito G.* Director Ejecutivo A. C. Wikimedia Argentina
2013/6/27 Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk
I learnt yesterday that the Welsh Wicipedia does not have 'stubs'. It has 'Little Acorns' - so much nicer and more descriptive. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
+1
I've always been surprised how all the time this discussion re-appears, most of the arguments are based about in-Wikipedia discussion and not about the impact of our goal: spread free knowledge. "What about the number of articles? And the ranking? And the 'Random articles'?" and so on... when most of our users don't care about that. They care about Wikipedia having an answer when they are looking for some info, probably via Google or through a blue link. Do you really think they will notice or care if it was made by human or a bot?
I don't think bots are the solution and they will always have some particular issues, but please, focus the discussion if the content created by bots are useful or not, just like any other kind of article, and not about topics that only are important for those who love (like me) statistics and are reeeeeeeally involved on Wikipedia.
*Osmar Valdebenito G.* Director Ejecutivo A. C. Wikimedia Argentina
2013/6/27 Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.uk
I learnt yesterday that the Welsh Wicipedia does not have 'stubs'. It has 'Little Acorns' - so much nicer and more descriptive. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.ukwrote:
I learnt yesterday that the Welsh Wicipedia does not have 'stubs'. It has 'Little Acorns' - so much nicer and more descriptive.
That's wonderful! :)
A.
In the Dutch Wikipedia they are called "beginnings"
2013/6/28, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.ukwrote:
I learnt yesterday that the Welsh Wicipedia does not have 'stubs'. It has 'Little Acorns' - so much nicer and more descriptive.
That's wonderful! :)
A.
Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
In Spanish Wikipedia there isn't any category for short articles. The category "esbozos" (Stubs) was deleted (and the templates) some years ago.
In the Dutch Wikipedia they are called "beginnings"
2013/6/28, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.ukwrote:
I learnt yesterday that the Welsh Wicipedia does not have 'stubs'. It has 'Little Acorns' - so much nicer and more descriptive.
That's wonderful! :)
A.
Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On the Tagalog Wikipedia, we call them "usbong" (new growth).
Speaking of deleting categories of short articles: I wonder why some Wikipedias chose to do this? Aside from the Spanish Wikipedia, the Polish Wikipedia got rid of stub categories as well.
Josh
On Jun 28, 2013, at 8:46 PM, "Santi Navarro" santiagonavarro@wikimedia.org.es wrote:
In Spanish Wikipedia there isn't any category for short articles. The category "esbozos" (Stubs) was deleted (and the templates) some years ago.
In the Dutch Wikipedia they are called "beginnings"
2013/6/28, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Jon Davies jon.davies@wikimedia.org.ukwrote:
I learnt yesterday that the Welsh Wicipedia does not have 'stubs'. It has 'Little Acorns' - so much nicer and more descriptive.
That's wonderful! :)
A.
Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Santiago Navarro Wikimedia España http://www.wikimedia.org.es/
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
The aim of introducing bots in sv.wp is not to beat any numbertarget but to address a real dilemma facing us with a community with limited size.
Another mail made me look into how much there is of Togo in different version. En:wp have around 600 towns, fr:wp around 250. sv:wp 5! (And not much better in sv:wp for Brazilian baseballplayers) And even to grow to reach 5% coverage for these categories is outside the capacity of our community.
So for us botgenerated (or wikidatagenerated) "stubs" are the only realistic option if we in our language want to give our readers basic info of these type of objects.
Anders
Ilario Valdelli skrev 2013-06-23 12:33:
Problem: a page with a template is it a page? I think no.
Please don't match the look & feel of a page having *some* data with an article with useful information.
The informations provided by bots may stay in few pages all together and probably the information offered by them may be more useful staying in few pages.
I am not in the opposition of the use of the bots, if these bots will have their place and the articles generated by bots are considered like *populated templates* and not like articles.
I think that a solution like this (the pages generated by bots are not included in the sum of articles), may be a really good compromise.
Are you, people running bots, open to accept this compromise? No? Ok, so you aim is not to offer a help to people who would write articles but to increase the number of your own Wikipedia.
What is the damage is the aim of these not-generated articles because there is no sense to transform the Cebuan Wikipedia in the Butterflypedia. This is the demonstration that the aim of the Lsjbot is not to help the contribution but to give visibility of a project without contributors.
Regards
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 10:24 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
tl;dr he has his qualms, but a decent stub provides an excellent hook for new contributors.
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/06/17/swedish-wikipedia-1-million-articles/#...
- d.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org