Congratulations to the swedish wikipedians! 2013/6/16 Anders Wennersten <mail(a)anderswennersten.se>se>: bot database generated in his supporting as of the -- Patricio Lorente Blog: http://www.patriciolorente.com.ar Identi.ca // Twitter: @patriciolorente _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

grattis mina kompisar! *Jag känner en bott, hon heter Lsjbot, Lsjbot heter hon...* It looks like Polish will be the next to hit the symbolic number: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias#100_000.2B_articles wittylama.com Peace, love & metadata On 16 June 2013 22:39, Tonmoy Khan <tonmoy.du(a)gmail.com> wrote: was a is last wikipedia end also https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Payin´ peanuts, gettin´ monkeys Servin´ facts, gettin´ idiots. An unmanageable, not maintainable mass of articles is the best way to breed idiots. Because facts do not create knowledge. If that is our goal, then automatically created Wikipedias ar the best way to solve one of our biggest problems, namely the permanent loss of authors. Maybe it is completely sufficient if you know that somewhere facts are stored in a most possible stupid form. I started more than fifty years ago learning about facts, facts without understanding. But nine years ago I startet to learn something about knowledge, understanding and correlations. Why do not you need people like me? If we have bots now? Do we want to make ourselves more important with impressive numbers? Hubertl! The german language Wikipedia has no single article that was generated by a bot. I'm proud of it. If this would take place in de:WP, many people will leave this project. With certainty. Anyway, that does not matter, a bot is probably much better for monkeys! Am 16.06.2013 14:51, schrieb Nurunnaby Chowdhury: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Payin´ peanuts, gettin´ monkeys Servin´ facts, gettin´ idiots. An unmanageable, not maintainable mass of articles is the best way to breed idiots. Because facts do not create knowledge. If that is our goal, then automatically created Wikipedias ar the best way to solve one of our biggest problems, namely the permanent loss of authors. Maybe it is completely sufficient if you know that somewhere facts are stored in a most possible stupid form. I started more than fifty years ago learning about facts, facts without understanding. But nine years ago I startet to learn something about knowledge, understanding and correlations. Why do not you need people like me? If we have bots now? Do we want to make ourselves more important with impressive numbers? Hubertl! The german language Wikipedia has no single article that was generated by a bot. I'm proud of it. If this would take place in de:WP, many people will leave this project. With certainty. Anyway, that does not matter, a bot is probably much better for monkeys! Am 16.06.2013 14:51, schrieb Nurunnaby Chowdhury: Congratulations swedish wikipedians!!!! ______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.**org &lt;Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists…

I agree that the 1000000th article is much better than no article on the subject, and I too joined the project with no previous training ----- Original Message ----- From: "Balázs Viczián" < balazs.viczian(a)wikimedia.hu&gt; To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org<wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 2:05 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Swedish Wikipedia reach 1 million (with supportof bots) I am totally supportive of the idea to create articles in this way if they > are more than a simple infobox with 5-6 stats in it. The bot generated > form > [1] of the millionth Swedish article is where these bot generated articles > can start from; a useful stub. If we take seriously this "collect the sum > of all knowledge" bla bla, then absolutely ok to generate such articles, > moreover it should be done wherever, whenever possible (like with the > Swedish lakes). > > Having zillions of articles will generate a lot of new editors from the > simple fact that more people will have chance (and larger chance) to bump > into wiki articles while browsing the internet. Or in an easier form: > Wikipedia will reach more people by cover more and more topics in a more > an > more detailed form. > > The first problem, you mention is who will maintain them. Well, probably > those who join through this massive expansion; who are already interested > in butterflies and actively learning about them on the net. Or those who > find their favourite fishing lake on Wiki and add some pictures and a bit > more detailed info about them. > > The other problem what you're describing is that all of these future new > editors will be "unqualified" (ni your wording "idiots") while all the > chapters are heavily working on "creating" qualified editors through their > various education programs. > > My question is: is this really a problem? How many of you joined Wikipedia > after being "educated" how to edit and stuff and how many of you joined by > "bumping" into articles so many times that you've eventually started > editing them? How many of you started as "idiots"? > > I did. > > Balázs > > [1] > http://sv.wikipedia.org/w/**index.php?title=Erysichton_** > elaborata&oldid=21735451<http://sv.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=E… > > > > 2013/6/17 Hubertl &lt;hubert.laska(a)gmx.at&gt; > > Payin´ peanuts, gettin´ monkeys >> >> Servin´ facts, gettin´ idiots. >> >> An unmanageable, not maintainable mass of articles is the best way to >> breed idiots. Because facts do not create knowledge. >> >> If that is our goal, then automatically created Wikipedias ar the best >> way >> to solve one of our biggest problems, namely the permanent loss of >> authors. >> >> Maybe it is completely sufficient if you know that somewhere facts are >> stored in a most possible stupid form. >> >> I started more than fifty years ago learning about facts, facts without >> understanding. But nine years ago I startet to learn something about >> knowledge, understanding and correlations. >> >> Why do not you need people like me? If we have bots now? >> >> Do we want to make ourselves more important with impressive numbers? >> >> Hubertl! >> >> The german language Wikipedia has no single article that was generated by >> a bot. I'm proud of it. If this would take place in de:WP, many people >> will >> leave this project. With certainty. >> >> Anyway, that does not matter, a bot is probably much better for monkeys! >> >> Am 16.06.2013 14:51, schrieb Nurunnaby Chowdhury: >> >> Congratulations swedish wikipedians!!!! >> >>> >>> *Nurunnaby Chowdhury Hasive* >>> Bangladesh Ambassador | Open Knowledge Network Foundation >>> (OKFN)<http://www.okfn.org> >>> Auto-confirmed, Reviewer & Roll backer Editor | Bangla >>> Wikipedia<http://bn.wikipedia.****org/wiki/user:nhasive<http:/** >>> /bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:**nhasive<http://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:nhasive> >>>>>>>>> Treasurer & Coordinator (PR) | Bangladesh Open Source Network >>> (BdOSN)<http://www.bdosn.org> >>> Coordinator (PR) | Society for the Popularization of Science, Bangladesh >>> (SPSB) <http://www.spsb.org>* >>> *Central Team MOVers | Bangladesh Mathematical Olympiad Committee >>> (BdMO)<http://www.**matholympi**ad.org.bd <http://matholympiad.org.bd>< >>> http://www.matholympiad.org.**bd <http://www.matholympiad.org.bd>>> >>> Facebook: fb.com/nhasive | Twitter: >>> @nhasive<http://www.twitter.****com/nhasive<http://www.** >>> twitter.com/nhasive <http://www.twitter.com/nhasive>>>| >>> Skype: nhasive | >>> www.nhasive.com >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Liam Wyatt &lt;liamwyatt(a)gmail.com&gt; >>> wrote: >>> >>> grattis mina kompisar! >>> >>>> *Jag känner en bott, hon heter Lsjbot, Lsjbot heter hon...* >>>> >>>> It looks like Polish will be the next to hit the symbolic number: >>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/****wiki/List_of_Wikipedias#100_**<http://meta… >>>> 000.2B_articles<http://meta.**wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_** >>>> Wikipedias#100_000.2B_articles<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wi… >>>> **> >>>> >>>> wittylama.com >>>> Peace, love & metadata >>>> >>>> >>>> On 16 June 2013 22:39, Tonmoy Khan &lt;tonmoy.du(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>> Congratulations!!! >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Tonmoy >>>>> On Jun 16, 2013 6:30 PM, "Patricio Lorente" < >>>>> patricio.lorente(a)gmail.com >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Congratulations to the swedish wikipedians! >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2013/6/16 Anders Wennersten &lt;mail(a)anderswennersten.se&gt;se>: >>>>>> >>>>>> Yesterday sv:wp reached 1 M articles. The one who did the passing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> was a >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> bot >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> generated article of a butterfly >>>>>>> http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/****Erysichton_elaborata<http://sv.wikipedi… >>>>>>> <http://**sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Erysichton_elaborata<http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erysichton_elaborata> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The bot behind this article is Lsjbot who creates articles from the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> database >>>>>> >>>>>> Catalogue of Life >>>>>>> http://www.catalogueoflife.****org/services/res/2011AC_**** >>>>>>> 26July.zip<http://www.**catalogueoflife.org/services/** >>>>>>> res/2011AC_26July.zip<http://www.catalogueoflife.org/services/res/2011AC… >>>>>>> >which >>>>>>> (complemented by other databases) which holds data of around 1.5 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> million >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> species. The bot genrates about 5000 new articles per day and has >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> generated >>>>>> >>>>>> just under 400 000 of the sv:wps million and continues... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The guy who runs he bot is a member of the Swedish chapters board >>>>>>> http://se.wikimedia.org/wiki/****Kandidater_2013/Sverker_**** >>>>>>> Johansson<http://se.wikimedia.org/wiki/**Kandidater_2013/Sverker_**Johan… >>>>>>> <http://se.wikimedia.**org/wiki/Kandidater_2013/**Sverker_Johansson<http://se.wikimedia.org/wiki/Kandidater_2013/Sverker_Johansson> >>>>>>> >and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> is >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> in his >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> civil life a University teacher. In this capacity he is also a guest >>>>>>> lecturer at the university of the Phillipines where he stayed the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> last >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> couple of months (and the bot was on hold). He is there active in >>>>> >>>>>> Cebuano-Wikipedia http://ceb.wikipedia.org/wiki/****Unang_Panid<http://ceb.wikipedia.org/w… >>>>>>> <http://ceb.**wikipedia.org/wiki/Unang_Panid<http://ceb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unang_Panid> >>>>>>> **>and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> supporting >>>>>> >>>>>> their local community, and he is now running his bot on their >>>>>>> >>>>>>> wikipedia >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> as >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> well as on the Warai-Warai Wikipedia >>>>>>> http://war.wikipedia.org/wiki/****Syahan_nga_Pakli<http://war.wikipedia.… >>>>>>> <http://war.**wikipedia.org/wiki/Syahan_nga_**Pakli<http://war.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syahan_nga_Pakli> >>>>>>> >. >>>>>>> So perhaps at the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> end >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> of the >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> year these two language versions will also pass the 1 million mark! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anders >>>>>>> PS out other major botgenerating effort of all lakes in Sweden is >>>>>>> >>>>>>> also >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> making very nice progress, done 25% of all DS >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> ______________________________****_________________ >>>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list >>>>>>> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.****org &lt;Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.** >>>>>>> org &lt;Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt;&gt; >>>>>>> Unsubscribe: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/****mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lis… >>>>>> <h**ttps://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Patricio Lorente >>>>>> Blog: http://www.patriciolorente.**c**om.ar <http://com.ar>< >>>>>> http://www.**patriciolorente.com.ar<http://www.patriciolorente.com.ar> >>>>>>>>>>>> Identi.ca // Twitter: @patriciolorente >>>>>> >>>>>> ______________________________****_________________ >>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list >>>>>> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.****org &lt;Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.** >>>>>> org &lt;Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt;&gt; >>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/** >>>>>> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<h**ttps://lists.wikimedia.org/** >>>>>> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinf… >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> ______________________________****_________________ >>>>>> >>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list >>>>> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.****org &lt;Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.** >>>>> org &lt;Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt;&gt; >>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**** >>>>> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listi… >>>>> <h**ttps://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> ______________________________****_________________ >>>>> >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list >>>> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.****org <Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org<Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> >>>>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**** >>>> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listi… >>>> <h**ttps://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l> >>>>>>>> >>>> ______________________________****_________________ >>>> >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list >>> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.****org <Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org<Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> >>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**** >>> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listi… >>> <h**ttps://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l> >>>>>> >>> >>> ______________________________****_________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list >> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.****org <Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org<Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> >>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**** >> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listi… >> <h**ttps://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l> >>>> >> ______________________________**_________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.**org &lt;Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists… > > ______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.**org &lt;Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists…

Payin´ peanuts, gettin´ monkeys Servin´ facts, gettin´ idiots. An unmanageable, not maintainable mass of articles is the best way to breed idiots. Because facts do not create knowledge. If that is our goal, then automatically created Wikipedias ar the best way to solve one of our biggest problems, namely the permanent loss of authors. Maybe it is completely sufficient if you know that somewhere facts are stored in a most possible stupid form. I started more than fifty years ago learning about facts, facts without understanding. But nine years ago I startet to learn something about knowledge, understanding and correlations. Why do not you need people like me? If we have bots now? Do we want to make ourselves more important with impressive numbers? Hubertl! The german language Wikipedia has no single article that was generated by a bot. I'm proud of it. If this would take place in de:WP, many people will leave this project. With certainty. Anyway, that does not matter, a bot is probably much better for monkeys!

Hubertl, your e-mail was rude, even if you did not mean it to be. Please remember hundreds of people read every e-mail sent to this list, and civility is expected. Thanks, Asaf On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Per A.J. Andersson &lt;paja(a)telia.com&gt; wrote:

Congratulations to the swedish wikipedians! 2013/6/16 Anders Wennersten &lt;mail(a)anderswennersten.se&gt;se>: bot database generated in his supporting as of the -- Patricio Lorente Blog: http://www.patriciolorente.com.ar Identi.ca // Twitter: @patriciolorente _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

I think that Anders is saying that the result of Wikimedia Swedish is due to a work of bots and to a work of people. It means that this result is contrary to the WMF strategy which would have more people and more contributors. The next millions of articles will be reached by Polish Wikipedia but also by cebuan Wikipedia and by Warai-Warai Wikipedia. May be it's the time to have only bots to write in Wikipedia? I hope that in future the number of articles will be counted considering at least a small content ad not only a template in a page, because the use like this will discourage the communities of editors.

On 16/06/13 15:24, Johan Jönsson wrote: I am again using the opportunity to remind that all of this will soon be completely unnecessary since it should be possible to generate the articles on the fly from Wikidata data.

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Hoi, Please consider .... there are over 280 Wikipedias in as many languages. In many languages we have few articles. Providing information is our mission. We aim to provide well written articles. The argument is that we do not succeed at that. Actually it is not an argument, it is a fact. When the Germans feel they do not need bot generated articles, more power to them, when they assume that their example is to be copied I truly wonder if they understand the lack of resources in so many languages. It is fairly easy to find articles that are considered relevant to a sizable group of the German populace that are missing.. I am working towards providing this information by using Wikidata. The best part (for the Germans) is that I urge them to make sure that these articles exist and are well written .. in German. Thanks, GerardM PS I blogged about how this can be done several times in the past On 17 June 2013 15:43, Dimce Grozdanoski &lt;dimce.grozdanoski(a)gmail.com a human articles <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

I would say our experience is that it doesn't affect the number of human editors at all in any way.

short articles about taxons or other stuff that, to be honest, probably wouldn't have been created otherwise. These articles have very few readers. Why on Earth would this discourage us? Our main problem is that browsing Swedish Wikipedia using the "random article" button isn't as fun as it used to be. That's probably fixable. //Johan Jönsson -- _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Hubertl, 18/06/2013 07:00: Well, sv.wiki has just volunteered to be your guinea pig as the first botpedia after Volapuk. :) I think it will be possible to make at least some simple stats like how many new editors we got with first edit on one of these articles, what's their retention etc. If the experiment fails, we may see mass-deletion of a million bot articles in a few years: it wouldn't be the first time, deleting is very easy. Nemo _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Anders Wennersten, 18/06/2013 09:00: To clarify, my view on life didn't include any item about bot article creation last time I checked. There's also nothing I "always have done" on this topic, as far as I remember: I'm just observing global patterns in our wikis. I really don't care about single instances of the patterns, especially when I can't do anything about them. Nemo _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Hi Per, The discussions on this list can be heated, and not everyone is always on their best behavior. All the caveats of debate on the Internet apply, and any personality problems you might encounter on Wikimedia projects occur on the lists as well. This is particularly so when, as in this case, the topic has been debated for many years without real resolution. ~Nathan _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

wrote:

The base fact figures for sv:wp is Increase of views +23% on yearly basis, WM:DE +3, WMF:Fr +8 (all mature wikipediauser communities), nl with +14 and wm:it with +16 also very good figures (Spain Russia, and Portugal still in a built up phase have higher numbers) http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/**TablesPageViewsMonthlyCombined** .htm <http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthlyCombined.htm> Editor >1 and >5 somewhat up or stable, new editor up in Jan, Feb, March, but down in April (eastertime) http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaSV.htm

Instead of just discussing this topic as always has been done, it would be great to take advantage of the opportunity to monitor changes in the sv-wp community as a result of this massive automated article creation. For me it would be interesting to know: 1) current perception in the community about automated articles correlated with the number of contributions by the person answering. 2) impact of the newly created articles: views, human edits done to those articles (specially nr of bytes added), correlation with nr of previous edits 3) changes in the community after 1 year, survey of new members, of those, how many registered after seeing a bot article vs how many after seeing a human-created article? 4) some metrics about the article quality (maybe with AFT) Otherwise the same arguments are going to be repeated over and over again, year after year, without ever reaching a conclusion, or without ever learning which impact those articles might have. Cheers, Micru _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

I think that Anders is saying that the result of Wikimedia Swedish is due to a work of bots and to a work of people. It means that this result is contrary to the WMF strategy which would have more people and more contributors. The next millions of articles will be reached by Polish Wikipedia but also by cebuan Wikipedia and by Warai-Warai Wikipedia. May be it's the time to have only bots to write in Wikipedia? I hope that in future the number of articles will be counted considering at least a small content ad not only a template in a page, because the use like this will discourage the communities of editors. Regards On 16.06.2013 13:30, Anders Wennersten wrote:

Article count milestones are nice! However, I remind those who were distracted in 2008 that article count is a largely irrelevant piece of our statistics since 2008; both stats.wikimedia.org and www.wikipedia.org (plus the other project portals) don't use it at all to "rank" projects, etc. <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Top_Ten_Wikipedias> Anders Wennersten, 16/06/2013 15:32: {{citation needed}} To me it seems the other wikis are rather stable. There is no wiki in top ten with 50 % bot created articles and after sv.wiki (13th) you have to reach positions 20th (vi) and 24th (vi) to find similar amounts. Nemo _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l