Hi!
I just I noticed that Cebuano and Waray-waray Wikipedia are inside the list of the 10 Wikipedias with more articles.[1] It seems it happened during this weekend. Maybe in the case of Waray Wikipedia happened a little before. Somebody knows when did it was exactly? Did I miss a thread announcing this?
Waray-waray is now the 6th place and Cebuano has surpassed it.wiki and es.wiki and gained the place number 8, mainly due to Lsjbot work.[2] Definitely a milestone in Wikipedia and bots history.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lsjbot
Il 06/07/2015 07:31, Salvador A ha scritto:
Hi!
I just I noticed that Cebuano and Waray-waray Wikipedia are inside the list of the 10 Wikipedias with more articles.[1]
Let's call them "non-redirect pages in the main namespace containing the text '[['", please.
It seems it happened during this weekend. Maybe in the case of Waray Wikipedia happened a little before. Somebody knows when did it was exactly? Did I miss a thread announcing this?
Waray-waray is now the 6th place and Cebuano has surpassed it.wiki and es.wiki and gained the place number 8, mainly due to Lsjbot work.[2] Definitely a milestone in Wikipedia and bots history.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lsjbot
I think these wikis have been on that list for a while. I don't know the specifics of why they're there, though, or comment on the depth/quality of the articles on the wikis.
Joe
On Sun, 5 Jul 2015 at 22:32 Salvador A salvador1983@gmail.com wrote:
Hi!
I just I noticed that Cebuano and Waray-waray Wikipedia are inside the list of the 10 Wikipedias with more articles.[1] It seems it happened during this weekend. Maybe in the case of Waray Wikipedia happened a little before. Somebody knows when did it was exactly? Did I miss a thread announcing this?
Waray-waray is now the 6th place and Cebuano has surpassed it.wiki and es.wiki and gained the place number 8, mainly due to Lsjbot work.[2] Definitely a milestone in Wikipedia and bots history.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lsjbot
-- *Salvador Alcántar* *@salvador_alc* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, While the quality of the articles is not something I care to discuss. The main thing of the many articles is that as a result of the existence of these articles, the number of readers of these languages has gone up and hte number of editors has gone up as well.
Our aim is to share in the sum of all knowledge. This is information that is available to us. In my opinion it is better than nothing, it proves its case. The absolute quality of no information is a 100% fail rate.
If the WMF is honest about its aim, it forgets about ubiquitous information (English can be had everywhere) and puts its effort in bringing information out where there is none. Even in English.
Thanks, GerardM
On 6 July 2015 at 08:22, Joseph Fox josephfoxwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I think these wikis have been on that list for a while. I don't know the specifics of why they're there, though, or comment on the depth/quality of the articles on the wikis.
Joe
On Sun, 5 Jul 2015 at 22:32 Salvador A salvador1983@gmail.com wrote:
Hi!
I just I noticed that Cebuano and Waray-waray Wikipedia are inside the
list
of the 10 Wikipedias with more articles.[1] It seems it happened during this weekend. Maybe in the case of Waray Wikipedia happened a little before. Somebody knows when did it was exactly? Did I miss a thread announcing this?
Waray-waray is now the 6th place and Cebuano has surpassed it.wiki and es.wiki and gained the place number 8, mainly due to Lsjbot work.[2] Definitely a milestone in Wikipedia and bots history.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lsjbot
-- *Salvador Alcántar* *@salvador_alc* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
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
This is an example about how to produce a "formal" impact without a "real" impact.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Salvador A salvador1983@gmail.com wrote:
Hi!
I just I noticed that Cebuano and Waray-waray Wikipedia are inside the list of the 10 Wikipedias with more articles.[1] It seems it happened during this weekend. Maybe in the case of Waray Wikipedia happened a little before. Somebody knows when did it was exactly? Did I miss a thread announcing this?
Waray-waray is now the 6th place and Cebuano has surpassed it.wiki and es.wiki and gained the place number 8, mainly due to Lsjbot work.[2] Definitely a milestone in Wikipedia and bots history.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lsjbot
-- *Salvador Alcántar* *@salvador_alc* _______________________________________________ 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
Hoi, How do you know that there is no impact ?
https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthlyCombined.htm shows clearly how much Cebuano has grown considerably in page views. The same is true for Waray Waray. Compare it to languages with a similar number of speakers. Please explain how this is not a real impact ! Thanks, GerardM
On 6 July 2015 at 10:20, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
This is an example about how to produce a "formal" impact without a "real" impact.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Salvador A salvador1983@gmail.com wrote:
Hi!
I just I noticed that Cebuano and Waray-waray Wikipedia are inside the
list
of the 10 Wikipedias with more articles.[1] It seems it happened during this weekend. Maybe in the case of Waray Wikipedia happened a little before. Somebody knows when did it was exactly? Did I miss a thread announcing this?
Waray-waray is now the 6th place and Cebuano has surpassed it.wiki and es.wiki and gained the place number 8, mainly due to Lsjbot work.[2] Definitely a milestone in Wikipedia and bots history.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lsjbot
-- *Salvador Alcántar* *@salvador_alc* _______________________________________________ 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
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ 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
https://war.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinaurog:ActiveUsers https://ceb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espesyal:ActiveUsers
An encyclopedia in the first 10 places without a community is it an encyclopedia?
Is the community important to say that wikipedia is wikipedia? In this case these projects are demonstrating that Wikipedia can renounce to one of its pilaster.
In my opinion the impact of Waray Waray or of Cebuan is a demonstration that any "strange" language can have a big traffic if it is placed in the first places of the ranking because it will be best ranked in search engines.
But an impact is something that produces "effects" and "dissemination". I don't see impact because the bot has increased only one measure (page view) and nothing else.
If the impact must be produced with SEO, the parameters of evaluations must change.
It is different when a bot is running in an encyclopedia supported by a "mature" community, because the articles will be improved in quality and will generate more and more effects.
Regards
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, How do you know that there is no impact ?
https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthlyCombined.htm shows clearly how much Cebuano has grown considerably in page views. The same is true for Waray Waray. Compare it to languages with a similar number of speakers. Please explain how this is not a real impact ! Thanks, GerardM
On 6 July 2015 at 10:20, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
This is an example about how to produce a "formal" impact without a
"real"
impact.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Salvador A salvador1983@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi!
I just I noticed that Cebuano and Waray-waray Wikipedia are inside the
list
of the 10 Wikipedias with more articles.[1] It seems it happened during this weekend. Maybe in the case of Waray Wikipedia happened a little before. Somebody knows when did it was exactly? Did I miss a thread announcing this?
Waray-waray is now the 6th place and Cebuano has surpassed it.wiki and es.wiki and gained the place number 8, mainly due to Lsjbot work.[2] Definitely a milestone in Wikipedia and bots history.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lsjbot
-- *Salvador Alcántar* *@salvador_alc* _______________________________________________ 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
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ 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
Hoi, I would not say that the Encyclopaedia Britannica is NOT an encyclopaedia.
The objective of Wikipedia is EXACTLY that it is read. Not that it is edited.
You can argue all you like against bot generated articles but in the final analysis it is doing a much better job than not providing information. Arguably it is not needed to save them as articles because it is possible to generate them on the fly based on information from Wikidata and cache the results but that is EXACTLY the kind of technology that would bring missing information to any Wikipedia without distorting the number of articles for people who only care about editors and editing. It is EXACTLY the kind of technology I would welcome the WMF to explore. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 July 2015 at 11:09, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
https://war.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinaurog:ActiveUsers https://ceb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espesyal:ActiveUsers
An encyclopedia in the first 10 places without a community is it an encyclopedia?
Is the community important to say that wikipedia is wikipedia? In this case these projects are demonstrating that Wikipedia can renounce to one of its pilaster.
In my opinion the impact of Waray Waray or of Cebuan is a demonstration that any "strange" language can have a big traffic if it is placed in the first places of the ranking because it will be best ranked in search engines.
But an impact is something that produces "effects" and "dissemination". I don't see impact because the bot has increased only one measure (page view) and nothing else.
If the impact must be produced with SEO, the parameters of evaluations must change.
It is different when a bot is running in an encyclopedia supported by a "mature" community, because the articles will be improved in quality and will generate more and more effects.
Regards
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, How do you know that there is no impact ?
https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthlyCombined.htm shows clearly how much Cebuano has grown considerably in page views. The same
is
true for Waray Waray. Compare it to languages with a similar number of speakers. Please explain how this is not a real impact ! Thanks, GerardM
On 6 July 2015 at 10:20, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
This is an example about how to produce a "formal" impact without a
"real"
impact.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Salvador A salvador1983@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi!
I just I noticed that Cebuano and Waray-waray Wikipedia are inside
the
list
of the 10 Wikipedias with more articles.[1] It seems it happened
during
this weekend. Maybe in the case of Waray Wikipedia happened a little before. Somebody knows when did it was exactly? Did I miss a thread announcing this?
Waray-waray is now the 6th place and Cebuano has surpassed it.wiki
and
es.wiki and gained the place number 8, mainly due to Lsjbot work.[2] Definitely a milestone in Wikipedia and bots history.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lsjbot
-- *Salvador Alcántar* *@salvador_alc* _______________________________________________ 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
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ 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
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ 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
If people don't edit Wikipedia, Wikipedia would not exist.
As I have said the IT tools to support community are welcome, the IT tools to populate a wikipedia like a population of a database should not be welcome in Wikipedia, they are more appropriated for Wikidata where the integration with Wikipedia is done in a right manner and are at the service of the overall communities.
Regards
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I would not say that the Encyclopaedia Britannica is NOT an encyclopaedia.
The objective of Wikipedia is EXACTLY that it is read. Not that it is edited.
You can argue all you like against bot generated articles but in the final analysis it is doing a much better job than not providing information. Arguably it is not needed to save them as articles because it is possible to generate them on the fly based on information from Wikidata and cache the results but that is EXACTLY the kind of technology that would bring missing information to any Wikipedia without distorting the number of articles for people who only care about editors and editing. It is EXACTLY the kind of technology I would welcome the WMF to explore. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 July 2015 at 11:09, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
https://war.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinaurog:ActiveUsers https://ceb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espesyal:ActiveUsers
An encyclopedia in the first 10 places without a community is it an encyclopedia?
Is the community important to say that wikipedia is wikipedia? In this
case
these projects are demonstrating that Wikipedia can renounce to one of
its
pilaster.
In my opinion the impact of Waray Waray or of Cebuan is a demonstration that any "strange" language can have a big traffic if it is placed in the first places of the ranking because it will be best ranked in search engines.
But an impact is something that produces "effects" and "dissemination". I don't see impact because the bot has increased only one measure (page
view)
and nothing else.
If the impact must be produced with SEO, the parameters of evaluations
must
change.
It is different when a bot is running in an encyclopedia supported by a "mature" community, because the articles will be improved in quality and will generate more and more effects.
Regards
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, How do you know that there is no impact ?
https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthlyCombined.htm
shows
clearly how much Cebuano has grown considerably in page views. The same
is
true for Waray Waray. Compare it to languages with a similar number of speakers. Please explain how this is not a real impact ! Thanks, GerardM
On 6 July 2015 at 10:20, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
This is an example about how to produce a "formal" impact without a
"real"
impact.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Salvador A salvador1983@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi!
I just I noticed that Cebuano and Waray-waray Wikipedia are inside
the
list
of the 10 Wikipedias with more articles.[1] It seems it happened
during
this weekend. Maybe in the case of Waray Wikipedia happened a
little
before. Somebody knows when did it was exactly? Did I miss a thread announcing this?
Waray-waray is now the 6th place and Cebuano has surpassed it.wiki
and
es.wiki and gained the place number 8, mainly due to Lsjbot
work.[2]
Definitely a milestone in Wikipedia and bots history.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lsjbot
-- *Salvador Alcántar* *@salvador_alc* _______________________________________________ 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>
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ 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
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ 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
Hoi, When people do not edit Wikipedia we are talking about a situation that does not exist.
I wholeheartedly disagree with you as you mistake the process with the product. Our aim is to produce a product and we should endeavour to provide it in a SMART way. We lose out when we do not do the best we can. Our best is NOT sitting on our hands keeping information that is available to ourselves for secondary reasons. Yes, we can write articles and yes they may be better but as long as we do not provide information we do a half arsed job. A job that is qualitatively and quantitatively inferior. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 July 2015 at 11:42, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
If people don't edit Wikipedia, Wikipedia would not exist.
As I have said the IT tools to support community are welcome, the IT tools to populate a wikipedia like a population of a database should not be welcome in Wikipedia, they are more appropriated for Wikidata where the integration with Wikipedia is done in a right manner and are at the service of the overall communities.
Regards
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, I would not say that the Encyclopaedia Britannica is NOT an
encyclopaedia.
The objective of Wikipedia is EXACTLY that it is read. Not that it is edited.
You can argue all you like against bot generated articles but in the
final
analysis it is doing a much better job than not providing information. Arguably it is not needed to save them as articles because it is possible to generate them on the fly based on information from Wikidata and cache the results but that is EXACTLY the kind of technology that would bring missing information to any Wikipedia without distorting the number of articles for people who only care about editors and editing. It is
EXACTLY
the kind of technology I would welcome the WMF to explore. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 July 2015 at 11:09, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
https://war.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinaurog:ActiveUsers https://ceb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espesyal:ActiveUsers
An encyclopedia in the first 10 places without a community is it an encyclopedia?
Is the community important to say that wikipedia is wikipedia? In this
case
these projects are demonstrating that Wikipedia can renounce to one of
its
pilaster.
In my opinion the impact of Waray Waray or of Cebuan is a demonstration that any "strange" language can have a big traffic if it is placed in
the
first places of the ranking because it will be best ranked in search engines.
But an impact is something that produces "effects" and
"dissemination". I
don't see impact because the bot has increased only one measure (page
view)
and nothing else.
If the impact must be produced with SEO, the parameters of evaluations
must
change.
It is different when a bot is running in an encyclopedia supported by a "mature" community, because the articles will be improved in quality
and
will generate more and more effects.
Regards
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, How do you know that there is no impact ?
https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthlyCombined.htm
shows
clearly how much Cebuano has grown considerably in page views. The
same
is
true for Waray Waray. Compare it to languages with a similar number
of
speakers. Please explain how this is not a real impact ! Thanks, GerardM
On 6 July 2015 at 10:20, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
This is an example about how to produce a "formal" impact without a
"real"
impact.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Salvador A <salvador1983@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi!
I just I noticed that Cebuano and Waray-waray Wikipedia are
inside
the
list
of the 10 Wikipedias with more articles.[1] It seems it happened
during
this weekend. Maybe in the case of Waray Wikipedia happened a
little
before. Somebody knows when did it was exactly? Did I miss a
thread
announcing this?
Waray-waray is now the 6th place and Cebuano has surpassed
it.wiki
and
es.wiki and gained the place number 8, mainly due to Lsjbot
work.[2]
Definitely a milestone in Wikipedia and bots history.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lsjbot
-- *Salvador Alcántar* *@salvador_alc* _______________________________________________ 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>
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ 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
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ 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
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ 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
Yes, and in this case I am saying that the bot populated Wikipedias are "bad" products because qualitatively poor, instead of an architecture of a data population and a creation of articles through Wikidata or through a central repository.
Basically it's for a control of the content.
A bot populated article can widespread an error or an outdated information in all web pages if there is not control of the community, instead a central repository like Wikidata facilitates this control.
The same concept of Wikipedia is in discussion.
It's an encyclopedia, but another encyclopedia (may we can it "botpedia"?).
Regards
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When people do not edit Wikipedia we are talking about a situation that does not exist.
I wholeheartedly disagree with you as you mistake the process with the product. Our aim is to produce a product and we should endeavour to provide it in a SMART way. We lose out when we do not do the best we can. Our best is NOT sitting on our hands keeping information that is available to ourselves for secondary reasons. Yes, we can write articles and yes they may be better but as long as we do not provide information we do a half arsed job. A job that is qualitatively and quantitatively inferior. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 July 2015 at 11:42, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
If people don't edit Wikipedia, Wikipedia would not exist.
As I have said the IT tools to support community are welcome, the IT
tools
to populate a wikipedia like a population of a database should not be welcome in Wikipedia, they are more appropriated for Wikidata where the integration with Wikipedia is done in a right manner and are at the
service
of the overall communities.
Regards
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, I would not say that the Encyclopaedia Britannica is NOT an
encyclopaedia.
The objective of Wikipedia is EXACTLY that it is read. Not that it is edited.
You can argue all you like against bot generated articles but in the
final
analysis it is doing a much better job than not providing information. Arguably it is not needed to save them as articles because it is
possible
to generate them on the fly based on information from Wikidata and
cache
the results but that is EXACTLY the kind of technology that would bring missing information to any Wikipedia without distorting the number of articles for people who only care about editors and editing. It is
EXACTLY
the kind of technology I would welcome the WMF to explore. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 July 2015 at 11:09, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
https://war.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinaurog:ActiveUsers https://ceb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espesyal:ActiveUsers
An encyclopedia in the first 10 places without a community is it an encyclopedia?
Is the community important to say that wikipedia is wikipedia? In
this
case
these projects are demonstrating that Wikipedia can renounce to one
of
its
pilaster.
In my opinion the impact of Waray Waray or of Cebuan is a
demonstration
that any "strange" language can have a big traffic if it is placed in
the
first places of the ranking because it will be best ranked in search engines.
But an impact is something that produces "effects" and
"dissemination". I
don't see impact because the bot has increased only one measure (page
view)
and nothing else.
If the impact must be produced with SEO, the parameters of
evaluations
must
change.
It is different when a bot is running in an encyclopedia supported
by a
"mature" community, because the articles will be improved in quality
and
will generate more and more effects.
Regards
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, How do you know that there is no impact ?
https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthlyCombined.htm
shows
clearly how much Cebuano has grown considerably in page views. The
same
is
true for Waray Waray. Compare it to languages with a similar number
of
speakers. Please explain how this is not a real impact ! Thanks, GerardM
On 6 July 2015 at 10:20, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com
wrote:
This is an example about how to produce a "formal" impact
without a
"real"
impact.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Salvador A <
salvador1983@gmail.com
wrote:
> Hi! > > I just I noticed that Cebuano and Waray-waray Wikipedia are
inside
the
list > of the 10 Wikipedias with more articles.[1] It seems it
happened
during
> this weekend. Maybe in the case of Waray Wikipedia happened a
little
> before. Somebody knows when did it was exactly? Did I miss a
thread
> announcing this? > > Waray-waray is now the 6th place and Cebuano has surpassed
it.wiki
and
> es.wiki and gained the place number 8, mainly due to Lsjbot
work.[2]
> Definitely a milestone in Wikipedia and bots history. > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lsjbot > > > -- > *Salvador Alcántar* > *@salvador_alc* > _______________________________________________ > 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>
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
> Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ 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>
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ 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
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ 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
Hoi, Arguably the same is true for Wikipedia. Many faulty articles exist. There are many list articles incomplete because people do not maintain them. Wikilinks refer to the wrong information. Incomplete information is often as bad as wrong information. Badly written articles are bad particularly when they confuse more than elaborate. There are plenty of these.
The notion of control ... REALLY ? It is ll too easy to find curated lists with proven information (like all the lakes of Sweden). Who needs control when the source of the data is impeccable ? Given Wikipedia the notion of control is rather weird given the amount of not satisfactory discussions that lead to arguably faulty and confusing articles.
The point is not that human written Wikipedia articles are not a good thing. The point is that they are not always the best we can do. A bot generated article wins hands down from no article in any language when the information is solid. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 July 2015 at 12:08, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, and in this case I am saying that the bot populated Wikipedias are "bad" products because qualitatively poor, instead of an architecture of a data population and a creation of articles through Wikidata or through a central repository.
Basically it's for a control of the content.
A bot populated article can widespread an error or an outdated information in all web pages if there is not control of the community, instead a central repository like Wikidata facilitates this control.
The same concept of Wikipedia is in discussion.
It's an encyclopedia, but another encyclopedia (may we can it "botpedia"?).
Regards
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, When people do not edit Wikipedia we are talking about a situation that does not exist.
I wholeheartedly disagree with you as you mistake the process with the product. Our aim is to produce a product and we should endeavour to
provide
it in a SMART way. We lose out when we do not do the best we can. Our
best
is NOT sitting on our hands keeping information that is available to ourselves for secondary reasons. Yes, we can write articles and yes they may be better but as long as we do not provide information we do a half arsed job. A job that is qualitatively and quantitatively inferior. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 July 2015 at 11:42, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
If people don't edit Wikipedia, Wikipedia would not exist.
As I have said the IT tools to support community are welcome, the IT
tools
to populate a wikipedia like a population of a database should not be welcome in Wikipedia, they are more appropriated for Wikidata where the integration with Wikipedia is done in a right manner and are at the
service
of the overall communities.
Regards
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, I would not say that the Encyclopaedia Britannica is NOT an
encyclopaedia.
The objective of Wikipedia is EXACTLY that it is read. Not that it is edited.
You can argue all you like against bot generated articles but in the
final
analysis it is doing a much better job than not providing
information.
Arguably it is not needed to save them as articles because it is
possible
to generate them on the fly based on information from Wikidata and
cache
the results but that is EXACTLY the kind of technology that would
bring
missing information to any Wikipedia without distorting the number of articles for people who only care about editors and editing. It is
EXACTLY
the kind of technology I would welcome the WMF to explore. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 July 2015 at 11:09, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
https://war.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinaurog:ActiveUsers https://ceb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espesyal:ActiveUsers
An encyclopedia in the first 10 places without a community is it an encyclopedia?
Is the community important to say that wikipedia is wikipedia? In
this
case
these projects are demonstrating that Wikipedia can renounce to one
of
its
pilaster.
In my opinion the impact of Waray Waray or of Cebuan is a
demonstration
that any "strange" language can have a big traffic if it is placed
in
the
first places of the ranking because it will be best ranked in
search
engines.
But an impact is something that produces "effects" and
"dissemination". I
don't see impact because the bot has increased only one measure
(page
view)
and nothing else.
If the impact must be produced with SEO, the parameters of
evaluations
must
change.
It is different when a bot is running in an encyclopedia supported
by a
"mature" community, because the articles will be improved in
quality
and
will generate more and more effects.
Regards
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, How do you know that there is no impact ?
https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthlyCombined.htm
shows
clearly how much Cebuano has grown considerably in page views.
The
same
is
true for Waray Waray. Compare it to languages with a similar
number
of
speakers. Please explain how this is not a real impact ! Thanks, GerardM
On 6 July 2015 at 10:20, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com
wrote:
> This is an example about how to produce a "formal" impact
without a
"real" > impact. > > > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Salvador A <
salvador1983@gmail.com
wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > I just I noticed that Cebuano and Waray-waray Wikipedia are
inside
the
> list > > of the 10 Wikipedias with more articles.[1] It seems it
happened
during
> > this weekend. Maybe in the case of Waray Wikipedia happened a
little
> > before. Somebody knows when did it was exactly? Did I miss a
thread
> > announcing this? > > > > Waray-waray is now the 6th place and Cebuano has surpassed
it.wiki
and
> > es.wiki and gained the place number 8, mainly due to Lsjbot
work.[2]
> > Definitely a milestone in Wikipedia and bots history. > > > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias > > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lsjbot > > > > > > -- > > *Salvador Alcántar* > > *@salvador_alc* > > _______________________________________________ > > 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>
> > > > > -- > Ilario Valdelli > Wikimedia CH > Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens > Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre > Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera > Switzerland - 8008 Zürich > Wikipedia: Ilario <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario
> Skype: valdelli > Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli > Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli > Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli < http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469 > > > Tel: +41764821371 > http://www.wikimedia.ch > _______________________________________________ > 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>
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ 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
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ 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
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ 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 Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When people do not edit Wikipedia we are talking about a situation that does not exist.
I wholeheartedly disagree with you as you mistake the process with the product. Our aim is to produce a product and we should endeavour to provide it in a SMART way. We lose out when we do not do the best we can. Our best is NOT sitting on our hands keeping information that is available to ourselves for secondary reasons. Yes, we can write articles and yes they may be better but as long as we do not provide information we do a half arsed job. A job that is qualitatively and quantitatively inferior. Thanks,
This is a kind of discussion that cyclically comes back, and I guess there is no correct answer. Wikipedia was born on the internet, and is designed to work on the internet, which means that as soon as it provides good links and good connection between links, it helps to get access to knowledge. It is not something that is supposed to be read from the beginning to the end (it's simply too big), so it is difficult to talk about the quality of the product as a whole. There are good articles, bad articles, wrong articles, uncovered topics; so the experience really depends on the reader's needs. Automatically created articles generally offer a good base, they're as accurate as their sources in providing basic data, and are often a good base to build upon. In some cases no one will build upon them, but even thus they do fulfill a need. Indicators are a simplification of a more complex object, so they can only tell a limited amount of things. We know that article count can be inflated by automatically creating stubs on very specialistic topics, average page weight by adding code-rich templates and so on, but as soon as people are aware of the fact, I don't see the problem.
We are now at a stage where a huge number of articles already exist, and where a big share of the creation content can be automated; if we stop now building the encyclopedia, we still have a great product that can help people; a lot of data could be kept up to date using only automated tools, although it will eventually look "old". At the end of the day, classical Latin literature has had no active community for centuries, and is still perfectly usable.
Marco (Cruccone)
Hoi, Given that this is the Wikimedia mailing list, the assumption that Wikipedia is primary is not necessary. The objective of the Wikimedia Foundation is in this more relevant. Consequently the balance for an argument is different.
I blog often about issues with Wikidata and Wikipedia. I often inform about approaches that make Wikidata more relevant and I am quite happy with the progress that has been made.
However, Wikipedia think does harm Wikidata. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 July 2015 at 12:40, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When people do not edit Wikipedia we are talking about a situation that does not exist.
I wholeheartedly disagree with you as you mistake the process with the product. Our aim is to produce a product and we should endeavour to
provide
it in a SMART way. We lose out when we do not do the best we can. Our
best
is NOT sitting on our hands keeping information that is available to ourselves for secondary reasons. Yes, we can write articles and yes they may be better but as long as we do not provide information we do a half arsed job. A job that is qualitatively and quantitatively inferior. Thanks,
This is a kind of discussion that cyclically comes back, and I guess there is no correct answer. Wikipedia was born on the internet, and is designed to work on the internet, which means that as soon as it provides good links and good connection between links, it helps to get access to knowledge. It is not something that is supposed to be read from the beginning to the end (it's simply too big), so it is difficult to talk about the quality of the product as a whole. There are good articles, bad articles, wrong articles, uncovered topics; so the experience really depends on the reader's needs. Automatically created articles generally offer a good base, they're as accurate as their sources in providing basic data, and are often a good base to build upon. In some cases no one will build upon them, but even thus they do fulfill a need. Indicators are a simplification of a more complex object, so they can only tell a limited amount of things. We know that article count can be inflated by automatically creating stubs on very specialistic topics, average page weight by adding code-rich templates and so on, but as soon as people are aware of the fact, I don't see the problem.
We are now at a stage where a huge number of articles already exist, and where a big share of the creation content can be automated; if we stop now building the encyclopedia, we still have a great product that can help people; a lot of data could be kept up to date using only automated tools, although it will eventually look "old". At the end of the day, classical Latin literature has had no active community for centuries, and is still perfectly usable.
Marco (Cruccone)
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
Gerard, an interesting statistic is that you have chosen to post 7 out of the 16 emails on this thread in under 2 hours.
Perhaps you might benefit from considering what list subscribers are expecting and want filling their inboxes, before posting more?
Thanks Fae ... mobile
From the perspective of a bot writer, and who proposed the automatic
creation of a few thousand drafts for missing English Wikipedia articles for registered monuments in Wales (the proposal was resisted), I would rather see auto-creation tools limited to *suggesting* stub articles on user request. A tool which suggested to an editor a missing article and gave them a reliably referenced stub, has the benefits of using available data to boost article creation, attracting newer editors to try article creation, and ensures that a person always remain responsible for edits to the encyclopaedia and can be approached about improvement.
P.S. Gerard, you have made over a third of all the posts in this thread during the day it has run, sometimes overlapping or repeating your earlier points, mostly about Wikidata. Perhaps you could take a moment to consider whether this helps to attract readers, and encourages non-regulars to participate, for slightly technical discussions like this?
Thanks, Fae
How much work would it take to write a tool that would create a stub article, given a species name, that would be usable by an ordinary user without special training?
-----Original Message----- From: wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Fæ Sent: 07 July 2015 04:09 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cebuano and Waray-waray Wikipedias among Top 10
From the perspective of a bot writer, and who proposed the automatic creation of a few thousand drafts for missing English Wikipedia articles for registered monuments in Wales (the proposal was resisted), I would rather see auto-creation tools limited to
*suggesting* stub articles on user request. A tool which suggested to an editor a missing article and gave them a reliably referenced stub, has the benefits of using available data to boost article creation, attracting newer editors to try article creation, and ensures that a person always remain responsible for edits to the encyclopaedia and can be approached about improvement.
P.S. Gerard, you have made over a third of all the posts in this thread during the day it has run, sometimes overlapping or repeating your earlier points, mostly about Wikidata. Perhaps you could take a moment to consider whether this helps to attract readers, and encourages non-regulars to participate, for slightly technical discussions like this?
Thanks, Fae -- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
_______________________________________________ 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: 2015.0.6037 / Virus Database: 4365/10179 - Release Date: 07/07/15
Yes, my concern is not to populate articles with data, because it is normal.
The recent approach of Wikidata to be connected with data repositories and to harvest data and to feed Wikidata is the best approach.
My concern is connected with the old approach to have a local repository (probably outdated) to feed wikipedia articles and not only in one language, but in several languages, because it can work if there is a community that takes these articles in charge if there is not an automatic process to updated them.
Personally I consider it a "bad" product and a "bad" architecture. The bots have been used in the past because there was not a central repository, but it has been a workaround in my opinion, best or worst it is difficult to say, that time is was the best because no other possibilities were present, at the moment it can be considered an old approach, and in my opinion a bad approach.
To make a comparison is like to propose handwritten books when there is the possibility to have a print machine... I would not imagine the time taken to update the handwritten books instead of to print a new edition of a book, it's natural that when the print machine was not present, the hands were the single tool available and the single solution.
The idea to invite people to edit with the sample justification that the presence of a stub invites to edit doesn't justify the approach because Cebuan and Waray Waray have not increased active editors since 2014.
The single change happened is only more presence of those language in the web, useful or not useful to the web crawlers is another question.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Given that this is the Wikimedia mailing list, the assumption that Wikipedia is primary is not necessary. The objective of the Wikimedia Foundation is in this more relevant. Consequently the balance for an argument is different.
I blog often about issues with Wikidata and Wikipedia. I often inform about approaches that make Wikidata more relevant and I am quite happy with the progress that has been made.
However, Wikipedia think does harm Wikidata. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 July 2015 at 12:40, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When people do not edit Wikipedia we are talking about a situation that does not exist.
I wholeheartedly disagree with you as you mistake the process with the product. Our aim is to produce a product and we should endeavour to
provide
it in a SMART way. We lose out when we do not do the best we can. Our
best
is NOT sitting on our hands keeping information that is available to ourselves for secondary reasons. Yes, we can write articles and yes
they
may be better but as long as we do not provide information we do a half arsed job. A job that is qualitatively and quantitatively inferior. Thanks,
This is a kind of discussion that cyclically comes back, and I guess there is no correct answer. Wikipedia was born on the internet, and is designed to work on the internet, which means that as soon as it provides good links and good connection between links, it helps to get access to knowledge. It is not something that is supposed to be read from the beginning to the end (it's simply too big), so it is difficult to talk about the quality of the product as a whole. There are good articles, bad articles, wrong articles, uncovered topics; so the experience really depends on the reader's needs. Automatically created articles generally offer a good base, they're as accurate as their sources in providing basic data, and are often a good base to build upon. In some cases no one will build upon them, but even thus they do fulfill a need. Indicators are a simplification of a more complex object, so they can only tell a limited amount of things. We know that article count can be inflated by automatically creating stubs on very specialistic topics, average page weight by adding code-rich templates and so on, but as soon as people are aware of the fact, I don't see the problem.
We are now at a stage where a huge number of articles already exist, and where a big share of the creation content can be automated; if we stop now building the encyclopedia, we still have a great product that can help people; a lot of data could be kept up to date using only automated tools, although it will eventually look "old". At the end of the day, classical Latin literature has had no active community for centuries, and is still perfectly usable.
Marco (Cruccone)
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
Hoi, Wikidata like Commons is a project in its own right. Its aim is to contribute to the aim of the Wikimedia Foundation first and to other projects second. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 July 2015 at 11:42, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
If people don't edit Wikipedia, Wikipedia would not exist.
As I have said the IT tools to support community are welcome, the IT tools to populate a wikipedia like a population of a database should not be welcome in Wikipedia, they are more appropriated for Wikidata where the integration with Wikipedia is done in a right manner and are at the service of the overall communities.
Regards
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, I would not say that the Encyclopaedia Britannica is NOT an
encyclopaedia.
The objective of Wikipedia is EXACTLY that it is read. Not that it is edited.
You can argue all you like against bot generated articles but in the
final
analysis it is doing a much better job than not providing information. Arguably it is not needed to save them as articles because it is possible to generate them on the fly based on information from Wikidata and cache the results but that is EXACTLY the kind of technology that would bring missing information to any Wikipedia without distorting the number of articles for people who only care about editors and editing. It is
EXACTLY
the kind of technology I would welcome the WMF to explore. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 July 2015 at 11:09, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
https://war.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinaurog:ActiveUsers https://ceb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espesyal:ActiveUsers
An encyclopedia in the first 10 places without a community is it an encyclopedia?
Is the community important to say that wikipedia is wikipedia? In this
case
these projects are demonstrating that Wikipedia can renounce to one of
its
pilaster.
In my opinion the impact of Waray Waray or of Cebuan is a demonstration that any "strange" language can have a big traffic if it is placed in
the
first places of the ranking because it will be best ranked in search engines.
But an impact is something that produces "effects" and
"dissemination". I
don't see impact because the bot has increased only one measure (page
view)
and nothing else.
If the impact must be produced with SEO, the parameters of evaluations
must
change.
It is different when a bot is running in an encyclopedia supported by a "mature" community, because the articles will be improved in quality
and
will generate more and more effects.
Regards
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, How do you know that there is no impact ?
https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthlyCombined.htm
shows
clearly how much Cebuano has grown considerably in page views. The
same
is
true for Waray Waray. Compare it to languages with a similar number
of
speakers. Please explain how this is not a real impact ! Thanks, GerardM
On 6 July 2015 at 10:20, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
This is an example about how to produce a "formal" impact without a
"real"
impact.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Salvador A <salvador1983@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi!
I just I noticed that Cebuano and Waray-waray Wikipedia are
inside
the
list
of the 10 Wikipedias with more articles.[1] It seems it happened
during
this weekend. Maybe in the case of Waray Wikipedia happened a
little
before. Somebody knows when did it was exactly? Did I miss a
thread
announcing this?
Waray-waray is now the 6th place and Cebuano has surpassed
it.wiki
and
es.wiki and gained the place number 8, mainly due to Lsjbot
work.[2]
Definitely a milestone in Wikipedia and bots history.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lsjbot
-- *Salvador Alcántar* *@salvador_alc* _______________________________________________ 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>
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ 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
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ 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
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ 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'm a bot operator in Persian Wikipedia (~500K articles) and I'm directly or indirectly responsible for creating more than half of the articles in that Wiki using automated or semi-automated tools that I built. If our language used Latin alphabet, we definitely would be one of the five biggest wikis.
I'm telling this to emphasize I'm not against bot-creating articles in general but I agree this is not the way we build Wikipedia.
We create articles of Wikipedia for people to read. Even if your articles has a very low quality eventually someone will improve it [1] but articles that have reader. How many of these articles will be read by people? Honestly I think 100K out of the 1M was enough.
That's why we created articles by bot in broad topics in Persian Wikipedia (minor planets 16K, villages of Iran 70K, national heritages of Iran 20K, cities of the world ~20K, chemical compounds 10-20K) because 20K articles in same topic attracts less then half of reader comparing to combination of 10K in one topic and 10K in another topic.
[1]: IPs can't create article, we enabled it once, disaster. but they can edit articles (low-quality-bot-created articles) and it attracts to add something and after a while they become a regular editor. That's why Persian Wikipedia has one of the highest growth rate in number of users and active users. So bot-created articles can be useful but not this way. Best
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I would not say that the Encyclopaedia Britannica is NOT an encyclopaedia.
The objective of Wikipedia is EXACTLY that it is read. Not that it is edited.
You can argue all you like against bot generated articles but in the final analysis it is doing a much better job than not providing information. Arguably it is not needed to save them as articles because it is possible to generate them on the fly based on information from Wikidata and cache the results but that is EXACTLY the kind of technology that would bring missing information to any Wikipedia without distorting the number of articles for people who only care about editors and editing. It is EXACTLY the kind of technology I would welcome the WMF to explore. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 July 2015 at 11:09, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
https://war.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinaurog:ActiveUsers https://ceb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espesyal:ActiveUsers
An encyclopedia in the first 10 places without a community is it an encyclopedia?
Is the community important to say that wikipedia is wikipedia? In this
case
these projects are demonstrating that Wikipedia can renounce to one of
its
pilaster.
In my opinion the impact of Waray Waray or of Cebuan is a demonstration that any "strange" language can have a big traffic if it is placed in the first places of the ranking because it will be best ranked in search engines.
But an impact is something that produces "effects" and "dissemination". I don't see impact because the bot has increased only one measure (page
view)
and nothing else.
If the impact must be produced with SEO, the parameters of evaluations
must
change.
It is different when a bot is running in an encyclopedia supported by a "mature" community, because the articles will be improved in quality and will generate more and more effects.
Regards
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, How do you know that there is no impact ?
https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthlyCombined.htm
shows
clearly how much Cebuano has grown considerably in page views. The same
is
true for Waray Waray. Compare it to languages with a similar number of speakers. Please explain how this is not a real impact ! Thanks, GerardM
On 6 July 2015 at 10:20, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
This is an example about how to produce a "formal" impact without a
"real"
impact.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Salvador A salvador1983@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi!
I just I noticed that Cebuano and Waray-waray Wikipedia are inside
the
list
of the 10 Wikipedias with more articles.[1] It seems it happened
during
this weekend. Maybe in the case of Waray Wikipedia happened a
little
before. Somebody knows when did it was exactly? Did I miss a thread announcing this?
Waray-waray is now the 6th place and Cebuano has surpassed it.wiki
and
es.wiki and gained the place number 8, mainly due to Lsjbot
work.[2]
Definitely a milestone in Wikipedia and bots history.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lsjbot
-- *Salvador Alcántar* *@salvador_alc* _______________________________________________ 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>
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ 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
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ 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
I would consider this discussion as a sensible one if you are editors of Cebuano and Waray-Waray Wikipedias, oppose the idea of creating bot-generated articles and have better plan how to increase quality and quantity of those projects. Optionally, you are always free to offer your help to those projects and start working.
Without such actions, I see opposition to that work as vanity expression: It's not fair that they have bigger than ours.
Article count is a valid measurement and it says exactly how many articles exist in Wikipedia in particular language. I hope this tautology is clear enough.
Conclusions based on article count may vary, but, don't worry, they are not about the greatness of your Wikipedia community or your ethnolinguistic group.
What makes sense -- and thus I am replying to Amir's message -- is to build repository of common knowledge and best practices related to bot generated articles. On Jul 6, 2015 12:15, "Amir Ladsgroup" ladsgroup@gmail.com wrote:
I'm a bot operator in Persian Wikipedia (~500K articles) and I'm directly or indirectly responsible for creating more than half of the articles in that Wiki using automated or semi-automated tools that I built. If our language used Latin alphabet, we definitely would be one of the five biggest wikis.
I'm telling this to emphasize I'm not against bot-creating articles in general but I agree this is not the way we build Wikipedia.
We create articles of Wikipedia for people to read. Even if your articles has a very low quality eventually someone will improve it [1] but articles that have reader. How many of these articles will be read by people? Honestly I think 100K out of the 1M was enough.
That's why we created articles by bot in broad topics in Persian Wikipedia (minor planets 16K, villages of Iran 70K, national heritages of Iran 20K, cities of the world ~20K, chemical compounds 10-20K) because 20K articles in same topic attracts less then half of reader comparing to combination of 10K in one topic and 10K in another topic.
[1]: IPs can't create article, we enabled it once, disaster. but they can edit articles (low-quality-bot-created articles) and it attracts to add something and after a while they become a regular editor. That's why Persian Wikipedia has one of the highest growth rate in number of users and active users. So bot-created articles can be useful but not this way. Best
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, I would not say that the Encyclopaedia Britannica is NOT an
encyclopaedia.
The objective of Wikipedia is EXACTLY that it is read. Not that it is edited.
You can argue all you like against bot generated articles but in the
final
analysis it is doing a much better job than not providing information. Arguably it is not needed to save them as articles because it is possible to generate them on the fly based on information from Wikidata and cache the results but that is EXACTLY the kind of technology that would bring missing information to any Wikipedia without distorting the number of articles for people who only care about editors and editing. It is
EXACTLY
the kind of technology I would welcome the WMF to explore. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 July 2015 at 11:09, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
https://war.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinaurog:ActiveUsers https://ceb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espesyal:ActiveUsers
An encyclopedia in the first 10 places without a community is it an encyclopedia?
Is the community important to say that wikipedia is wikipedia? In this
case
these projects are demonstrating that Wikipedia can renounce to one of
its
pilaster.
In my opinion the impact of Waray Waray or of Cebuan is a demonstration that any "strange" language can have a big traffic if it is placed in
the
first places of the ranking because it will be best ranked in search engines.
But an impact is something that produces "effects" and
"dissemination". I
don't see impact because the bot has increased only one measure (page
view)
and nothing else.
If the impact must be produced with SEO, the parameters of evaluations
must
change.
It is different when a bot is running in an encyclopedia supported by a "mature" community, because the articles will be improved in quality
and
will generate more and more effects.
Regards
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, How do you know that there is no impact ?
https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthlyCombined.htm
shows
clearly how much Cebuano has grown considerably in page views. The
same
is
true for Waray Waray. Compare it to languages with a similar number
of
speakers. Please explain how this is not a real impact ! Thanks, GerardM
On 6 July 2015 at 10:20, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
This is an example about how to produce a "formal" impact without a
"real"
impact.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Salvador A <salvador1983@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi!
I just I noticed that Cebuano and Waray-waray Wikipedia are
inside
the
list
of the 10 Wikipedias with more articles.[1] It seems it happened
during
this weekend. Maybe in the case of Waray Wikipedia happened a
little
before. Somebody knows when did it was exactly? Did I miss a
thread
announcing this?
Waray-waray is now the 6th place and Cebuano has surpassed
it.wiki
and
es.wiki and gained the place number 8, mainly due to Lsjbot
work.[2]
Definitely a milestone in Wikipedia and bots history.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lsjbot
-- *Salvador Alcántar* *@salvador_alc* _______________________________________________ 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>
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ 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
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ 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
-- Amir _______________________________________________ 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
Amir makes a good point that it is easier to improve an article than to create it. Bot created articles would be particularly useful on en: for the many thousands of organisms that do not have an article yet. I run into missing articles all the time in marine organisms, but do not have the time or inclination to create them. I would have the time and inclination to improve some of them if they were there as well formatted stubs, with section headers to indicate where and what was missing. Creating an article for an organism requires repetitive actions to a fixed formula. It is work which can be automated and as I see it, should be automated, as it is boring and tedious, and I have to look up how to do it every time, so it is unlikely that I will do it most times. There are plenty of articles which perhaps should not be created by a bot, but that should not stop the ones that should be done that way. If people think they artificially inflate the article count, give them a category like bot-stub and don’t count them until a human has upgraded them to a better category. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Amir Ladsgroup Sent: 06 July 2015 11:49 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cebuano and Waray-waray Wikipedias among Top 10
I'm a bot operator in Persian Wikipedia (~500K articles) and I'm directly or indirectly responsible for creating more than half of the articles in that Wiki using automated or semi-automated tools that I built. If our language used Latin alphabet, we definitely would be one of the five biggest wikis.
I'm telling this to emphasize I'm not against bot-creating articles in general but I agree this is not the way we build Wikipedia.
We create articles of Wikipedia for people to read. Even if your articles has a very low quality eventually someone will improve it [1] but articles that have reader. How many of these articles will be read by people? Honestly I think 100K out of the 1M was enough.
That's why we created articles by bot in broad topics in Persian Wikipedia (minor planets 16K, villages of Iran 70K, national heritages of Iran 20K, cities of the world ~20K, chemical compounds 10-20K) because 20K articles in same topic attracts less then half of reader comparing to combination of 10K in one topic and 10K in another topic.
[1]: IPs can't create article, we enabled it once, disaster. but they can edit articles (low-quality-bot-created articles) and it attracts to add something and after a while they become a regular editor. That's why Persian Wikipedia has one of the highest growth rate in number of users and active users. So bot-created articles can be useful but not this way. Best
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I would not say that the Encyclopaedia Britannica is NOT an encyclopaedia.
The objective of Wikipedia is EXACTLY that it is read. Not that it is edited.
You can argue all you like against bot generated articles but in the final analysis it is doing a much better job than not providing information. Arguably it is not needed to save them as articles because it is possible to generate them on the fly based on information from Wikidata and cache the results but that is EXACTLY the kind of technology that would bring missing information to any Wikipedia without distorting the number of articles for people who only care about editors and editing. It is EXACTLY the kind of technology I would welcome the WMF to explore. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 July 2015 at 11:09, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
https://war.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinaurog:ActiveUsers https://ceb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espesyal:ActiveUsers
An encyclopedia in the first 10 places without a community is it an encyclopedia?
Is the community important to say that wikipedia is wikipedia? In this
case
these projects are demonstrating that Wikipedia can renounce to one of
its
pilaster.
In my opinion the impact of Waray Waray or of Cebuan is a demonstration that any "strange" language can have a big traffic if it is placed in the first places of the ranking because it will be best ranked in search engines.
But an impact is something that produces "effects" and "dissemination". I don't see impact because the bot has increased only one measure (page
view)
and nothing else.
If the impact must be produced with SEO, the parameters of evaluations
must
change.
It is different when a bot is running in an encyclopedia supported by a "mature" community, because the articles will be improved in quality and will generate more and more effects.
Regards
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, How do you know that there is no impact ?
https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthlyCombined.htm
shows
clearly how much Cebuano has grown considerably in page views. The same
is
true for Waray Waray. Compare it to languages with a similar number of speakers. Please explain how this is not a real impact ! Thanks, GerardM
On 6 July 2015 at 10:20, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
This is an example about how to produce a "formal" impact without a
"real"
impact.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Salvador A salvador1983@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi!
I just I noticed that Cebuano and Waray-waray Wikipedia are inside
the
list
of the 10 Wikipedias with more articles.[1] It seems it happened
during
this weekend. Maybe in the case of Waray Wikipedia happened a
little
before. Somebody knows when did it was exactly? Did I miss a thread announcing this?
Waray-waray is now the 6th place and Cebuano has surpassed it.wiki
and
es.wiki and gained the place number 8, mainly due to Lsjbot
work.[2]
Definitely a milestone in Wikipedia and bots history.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lsjbot
-- *Salvador Alcántar* *@salvador_alc* _______________________________________________ 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>
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ 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=unsubscr ibe
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=unsubscrib e
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ 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
-- Amir _______________________________________________ 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: 2015.0.6037 / Virus Database: 4365/10172 - Release Date: 07/06/15
Hoi, Why not to focus on that technology instead of bots? Then every Wikipedia could benefit from Lsjbot's sources, without polluting the article namespace but still providing information to readers and incentive to editors. That is EXACTLY what Reasonator and AutoDesc already do. Content would be generated on the fly so: no irreversibility, no out-of-date information. Thanks, Ricordisamoa
Il 06/07/2015 11:24, Gerard Meijssen ha scritto:
Hoi, I would not say that the Encyclopaedia Britannica is NOT an encyclopaedia.
The objective of Wikipedia is EXACTLY that it is read. Not that it is edited.
You can argue all you like against bot generated articles but in the final analysis it is doing a much better job than not providing information. Arguably it is not needed to save them as articles because it is possible to generate them on the fly based on information from Wikidata and cache the results but that is EXACTLY the kind of technology that would bring missing information to any Wikipedia without distorting the number of articles for people who only care about editors and editing. It is EXACTLY the kind of technology I would welcome the WMF to explore. Thanks, GerardM
On 6 July 2015 at 11:09, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
https://war.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinaurog:ActiveUsers https://ceb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espesyal:ActiveUsers
An encyclopedia in the first 10 places without a community is it an encyclopedia?
Is the community important to say that wikipedia is wikipedia? In this case these projects are demonstrating that Wikipedia can renounce to one of its pilaster.
In my opinion the impact of Waray Waray or of Cebuan is a demonstration that any "strange" language can have a big traffic if it is placed in the first places of the ranking because it will be best ranked in search engines.
But an impact is something that produces "effects" and "dissemination". I don't see impact because the bot has increased only one measure (page view) and nothing else.
If the impact must be produced with SEO, the parameters of evaluations must change.
It is different when a bot is running in an encyclopedia supported by a "mature" community, because the articles will be improved in quality and will generate more and more effects.
Regards
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 4:55 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthlyCombined.htm shows clearly how much Cebuano has grown considerably in page views.
It's a shame we don't have filtered page view data: it'd be good to know whether all those new articles are being read by people or just bots.
The 1,2+ M articles on species generated by LsjBot from COL (CatalogueOfLife) was completed in September 2014.
Now under way by Lsjbot is generation of geographic entities from GeoNames [1]. Still being in an early phase and there is a lot to look into like the links to Wikidata. A testrun has been for done for entities on Samoa where the potential can be seen , [2]
I am very aware that the approach to botgenerated articles differs on different language versions (I think in my last count I found it to be practiced in volumes in around 15 language versions) . I also am very aware that article count is not the best measurement of versions substance content. But bot generation is one path in our common quest to create free knowledge for all and it definitely generated real impact.
Anders
[1] http://www.geonames.org/ it contains 9 M enties, but certainly not all of these will be generated and many of the entities already exist
[2] example https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faleata_East
Salvador A skrev den 2015-07-06 07:31:
Hi!
I just I noticed that Cebuano and Waray-waray Wikipedia are inside the list of the 10 Wikipedias with more articles.[1] It seems it happened during this weekend. Maybe in the case of Waray Wikipedia happened a little before. Somebody knows when did it was exactly? Did I miss a thread announcing this?
Waray-waray is now the 6th place and Cebuano has surpassed it.wiki and es.wiki and gained the place number 8, mainly due to Lsjbot work.[2] Definitely a milestone in Wikipedia and bots history.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lsjbot
Hey :)
There has been a lot of talk about Wikidata in this thread. We are indeed going to work on a solution. Lucie will be working on this project as part of her bachelor thesis starting in August. It is called article placeholder. You can read more and give input at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Article_placeholder_input and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T99895
Cheers Lydia
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Lydia Pintscher lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de wrote:
Hey :)
There has been a lot of talk about Wikidata in this thread. We are indeed going to work on a solution. Lucie will be working on this project as part of her bachelor thesis starting in August. It is called article placeholder. You can read more and give input at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Article_placeholder_input and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T99895
Another interesting overview that is now easily possible thanks to Wikidata: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Statistics/Wikipedia shows you what kind of topics different Wikipedias cover. The differences are enlightening.
Cheers Lydia
Thank you, this is excellent, and a good illustration of the tip of the iceberg of what's possible once things are well-described on Wikidata.
A.
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Lydia Pintscher < lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Lydia Pintscher lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de wrote:
Hey :)
There has been a lot of talk about Wikidata in this thread. We are indeed going to work on a solution. Lucie will be working on this project as
part
of her bachelor thesis starting in August. It is called article
placeholder.
You can read more and give input at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Article_placeholder_input and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T99895
Another interesting overview that is now easily possible thanks to Wikidata: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Statistics/Wikipedia shows you what kind of topics different Wikipedias cover. The differences are enlightening.
Cheers Lydia
-- Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher Product Manager for Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 10963 Berlin www.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
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
Very interesting. Fairly obvious what the bots have been used for most. I look forward to some more in-depth analyses. How long do these surveys take? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Lydia Pintscher Sent: 12 July 2015 06:34 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cebuano and Waray-waray Wikipedias among Top 10
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Lydia Pintscher lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de wrote:
Hey :)
There has been a lot of talk about Wikidata in this thread. We are indeed going to work on a solution. Lucie will be working on this project as part of her bachelor thesis starting in August. It is called article placeholder. You can read more and give input at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Article_placeholder_input and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T99895
Another interesting overview that is now easily possible thanks to Wikidata: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Statistics/Wikipedia shows you what kind of topics different Wikipedias cover. The differences are enlightening.
Cheers Lydia
-- Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher Product Manager for Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 10963 Berlin www.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
_______________________________________________ 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: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4392/10213 - Release Date: 07/12/15
On Jul 12, 2015 14:44, "Peter Southwood" peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
Very interesting. Fairly obvious what the bots have been used for most. I
look forward to some more in-depth analyses.
How long do these surveys take?
What is done there is fairly easy as it is done based on the data already available in Wikidata. If you look at Wikidata items you will see "instance of" and "subclass of" fairly often. This is what the charts are based on. Depending on which other questions you want to answer it might be more difficult.
Cheers Lydia
Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Lydia Pintscher
Sent: 12 July 2015 06:34 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cebuano and Waray-waray Wikipedias among Top 10
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Lydia Pintscher <
lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de> wrote:
Hey :)
There has been a lot of talk about Wikidata in this thread. We are indeed going to work on a solution. Lucie will be working on this project as part of her bachelor thesis starting in August. It is called
article placeholder.
You can read more and give input at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Article_placeholder_input and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T99895
Another interesting overview that is now easily possible thanks to Wikidata: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Statistics/Wikipedia shows you what kind of topics different Wikipedias cover. The differences
are enlightening.
Cheers Lydia
-- Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher Product Manager for
Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 10963 Berlin www.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
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: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4392/10213 - Release Date: 07/12/15
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
2015-07-12 19:34 GMT+03:00 Lydia Pintscher lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Lydia Pintscher lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de wrote:
Hey :)
There has been a lot of talk about Wikidata in this thread. We are indeed going to work on a solution. Lucie will be working on this project as part of her bachelor thesis starting in August. It is called article placeholder. You can read more and give input at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Article_placeholder_input and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T99895
Another interesting overview that is now easily possible thanks to Wikidata: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Statistics/Wikipedia shows you what kind of topics different Wikipedias cover. The differences are enlightening.
I see the data source quoted there. Is there somewhere I can see the code that created that data?
Thanks, Strainu
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 10:49 PM, Strainu strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
I see the data source quoted there. Is there somewhere I can see the code that created that data?
I am not sure how it all works but https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Module:Statistical_data and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Template:Site_content are probably a good start. From a quick scan it looks like User:Zolo set a lot of it up so if you want to know more I'd start with them.
Cheers Lydia
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org