(cross-posting to general list, because policy affects all languages)
On Saturday 22 November 2003 11:01, Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
Today is apparently spelling day, it appears that a number of users are running bots to fix spelling errors. I believe this practice should be stopped; first off, it is a waste of time to correct spelling on articles which are far from finished. But more importantly, the bots are going to write over words which are supposed to be spelled a certain way, I know that there are quotes with deliberately misspelled words in them. Spelling day is a bad idea.
I disagree that correcting spelling errors in principle is a bad idea because articles are not finished. This is nonsense, articles on wikipedia are never finished - that doesn't mean they should contain spelling errors. You're right however on the spelling bots: These things are dangerous, and should be avoided. Fixing spelling errors on wikipedia is a massive task. Either we disallow bots for this purpose or we introduce a guideline that each spelling error has to have been looked at by the person running the bot first, and then approved for editing by the bot. I know that this is not directly enforceable, but most policies on wikipedia are not. If someone makes a "spelling correction" with a bot where the spelling was correct in the context, that shows that they have not actually looked at that particular instance. Appropriate measures can then be taken. WDYT?
Best, Sascha Noyes
I disagree that correcting spelling errors in principle is a bad idea because articles are not finished. This is nonsense, articles on wikipedia are never finished - that doesn't mean they should contain spelling errors. You're right however on the spelling bots: These things are dangerous, and should be avoided. Fixing spelling errors on wikipedia is a massive task. Either we disallow bots for this purpose or we introduce a guideline that each spelling error has to have been looked at by the person running the bot first, and then approved for editing by the bot. I know that this is not directly enforceable, but most policies on wikipedia are not. If someone makes a "spelling correction" with a bot where the spelling was correct in the context, that shows that they have not actually looked at that particular instance. Appropriate measures can then be taken. WDYT?
I don't know how hard that'd be, but couldn't the bots ignore (just report) mispelled words between quotes? ''like that'' or "that"? If the mispelling (talking about common mistakes here, like taht, not words which can have different spelling/meanings :) is intended, it is probably meaning something, so the word or expression is probably emphazised (hum, what's the spelling? :)) to show, in the article itself, that the mispelling IS intended.
Best, Sascha Noyes
Regards Nicolas
Nicolas Weeger wrote:
I disagree that correcting spelling errors in principle is a bad idea because articles are not finished. This is nonsense, articles on wikipedia are never finished - that doesn't mean they should contain spelling errors.
There is nothing wrong with correcting the spelling in unfinished articles, but as a matter of courtesy when a person is obviously continuing his work in such an article I would give him the time to finish his work before I tried to change it. Still. I see this as a secondary point in Adam's concerns.,
You're right however on the spelling bots: These things are dangerous, and should be avoided. Fixing spelling errors on wikipedia is a massive task. Either we disallow bots for this purpose or we introduce a guideline that each spelling error has to have been looked at by the person running the bot first, and then approved for editing by the bot. I know that this is not directly enforceable, but most policies on wikipedia are not. If someone makes a "spelling correction" with a bot where the spelling was correct in the context, that shows that they have not actually looked at that particular instance. Appropriate measures can then be taken. WDYT?
I don't know how hard that'd be, but couldn't the bots ignore (just report) mispelled words between quotes? ''like that'' or "that"? If the mispelling (talking about common mistakes here, like taht, not words which can have different spelling/meanings :) is intended, it is probably meaning something, so the word or expression is probably emphazised (hum, what's the spelling? :)) to show, in the article itself, that the mispelling IS intended.
It's not just the typos and misspellings that are at issue. One also needs to consider variant spellings. The difference between British and American spellings is perhaps the most obvious example of that. Spelling bots are often rooted in one or the other spelling, and when they start changing alternative spellings it leaves people needlessly annoyed. Spelling bots that do not require human intervention should be completely outlawed.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Spelling bots that do not require human intervention should be completely outlawed.
I could not possibly agree more. As usual for Monday, I'm catching up on the weekend's festivities... is this actually happening, or just a theoretical discussion?
--Jimbo
On Monday 24 November 2003 16:45, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Spelling bots that do not require human intervention should be completely outlawed.
I could not possibly agree more. As usual for Monday, I'm catching up on the weekend's festivities... is this actually happening, or just a theoretical discussion?
I don't know what bots are being run - (i.e. whether the bots require human intervention or not) but there certainly are people running spell-correction bots:
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:typo
Best, Sascha Noyes -- Please encrypt all email. Public key available from www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org