On 06/17/2013 10:38 PM, Adrian Grycuk wrote:
Boty to mocno dyskusyjna sprawa, ale ten szwedzki bot, Lsjbot, który wypluwa z siebie 5000 haseł dziennie, a wyprodukował do tej pory 400.000+ haseł i działa dalej, to jak się wydaje inna sprawa.
Przykładowa twórczość Lsjbota (w historii oprócz mnie wszystko to boty) http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A5ngstj%C3%A4rtad_bredn%C3%A4bb
Jak tak ma wyglądać twórczość botowa to jestem za.
Pozdrowienia, Kpjas Krzysztof P. Jasiutowicz
Rzeczywiscie, naprawde bardzo dobrze to wyglada. Ze szwedzkim Lsjbotem na sluzbie pl-Wiki moglibysmy juz zaczac chlodzic tego szampana:)
tak na marginesie trudności botowania okzuje sie, że 1M artykuł na sv.wiki jest oparty na nieaktualnych źródła a gatunek, który opisuje został inaczej sklasyfkowany.
Kopi posta Kurta Kulaca z Wikimedi-l
i don´t want to repeat all those arguments already quoted (lennard already mentioned achim raschkas criticism, which i fully agree with), since what happend, already happend, and will unstoppably happen in the future. but i would say first of all the strategic goal is not to contribute hundreds of mistakes a day. just to take the 1 millionth article Erysichton elaborata: after an advice on the talk page a HUMAN added, that the species is probably synonymized with Erysichton palmyra. so far, so good. but even this correction is not enough. in 2010 the genus erysichton was redefined and a new genus, jameela was described. both taxa now desrcibed as in sv.wikipedia are invalid.
so just concerning this tiny tiny group of articles, there is already a bunch of mistakes, the bot copied out of outdated databases. wouldn´t be a big deal, if somebody mentioned that the articles sticked to the old view. but that´s something a bot can´t handle. so how reliable is the rest of the articles?
a bot can be a convenient helper for authors, who know, how to handle it, as it seems has happened with the creation of the articles about swedish lakes (i´m no expert with that though). but it is a desastrous tool for our whole movement, if you create hundreds of thousands (!) articles, without the slightest idea, how to handle the contradictions, that will appear doubtlessly?
it´s a sad thing, that you mention quality and this action in one centence...
truly utterly disappointed encyclopedic greetings, kurt