Apparently people at ru have filled their their Wiktionary with completely empty templates saying "This word or expression has not been translated yet. Please add your translation."
ru.wikt has 105 877 entries, out of which 81 496 are empty templates.
This makes the Russian Wiktionary entirely useless; people complain they have stopped checking it, because they keep seeing empty entries.
I suggest we stop adding interwiki links to ru:.
--tsca
Tomasz Sienicki schreef:
Apparently people at ru have filled their their Wiktionary with completely empty templates saying "This word or expression has not been translated yet. Please add your translation."
ru.wikt has 105 877 entries, out of which 81 496 are empty templates.
This makes the Russian Wiktionary entirely useless; people complain they have stopped checking it, because they keep seeing empty entries.
I suggest we stop adding interwiki links to ru:.
--tsca
Hoi, It is sad that the craze of creating more entries on a Wiki has made a wiki useless. I would support the removal of these 81.496 empty pages, they are not helpful at all.
It is not possible to stop adding interwiki links to ru. The process is based on checking the existence of an expression that is spelled exactly the same on other Wiktionaries. There is no reason to believe that the expression that you are looking at on a Wiktionary means the same on the other Wiktionary anyway.
I run the interwiki bot as a service. I have not programmed it, I try to address issues when they arise by asking Andre Engels to have a look at the code to fix an issue.
Thanks, GerardM
Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com a écrit : Tomasz Sienicki schreef:
Apparently people at ru have filled their their Wiktionary with completely empty templates saying "This word or expression has not been translated yet. Please add your translation."
ru.wikt has 105 877 entries, out of which 81 496 are empty templates.
This makes the Russian Wiktionary entirely useless; people complain they have stopped checking it, because they keep seeing empty entries.
I suggest we stop adding interwiki links to ru:.
--tsca
Hoi, It is sad that the craze of creating more entries on a Wiki has made a wiki useless. I would support the removal of these 81.496 empty pages, they are not helpful at all.
It is not possible to stop adding interwiki links to ru. The process is based on checking the existence of an expression that is spelled exactly the same on other Wiktionaries. There is no reason to believe that the expression that you are looking at on a Wiktionary means the same on the other Wiktionary anyway.
I run the interwiki bot as a service. I have not programmed it, I try to address issues when they arise by asking Andre Engels to have a look at the code to fix an issue.
Thanks, GerardM
_______________________________________________ Wiktionary-l mailing list Wiktionary-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l Hi, I agree with GerardM : these entries are useless and should be deleted. Stopping interwiki links will not resolve the problem :-/ Darkdadaah
--------------------------------- Découvrez une nouvelle façon d'obtenir des réponses à toutes vos questions ! Profitez des connaissances, des opinions et des expériences des internautes sur Yahoo! Questions/Réponses.
[2007-01-30 08:59] Matthieu Barba wrote:
I agree with GerardM : these entries are useless and should be deleted. Stopping interwiki links will not resolve the problem :-/
I agree of course that removing these entries would be the best solution. I've written in the Village Pump at ru: and invited their editors to discuss it here.
--tsca
Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, It is sad that the craze of creating more entries on a Wiki has made a wiki useless. I would support the removal of these 81.496 empty pages, they are not helpful at all.
Useful for checking if a word exists (i.e. spell check).
*Muke!
Muke Tever wrote:
Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, It is sad that the craze of creating more entries on a Wiki has made a wiki useless. I would support the removal of these 81.496 empty pages, they are not helpful at all.
Useful for checking if a word exists (i.e. spell check).
*Muke!
But spell check presents suggestions for correcting your spelling. These essentially content-less entries only inform you -- should you spell the word right in the first place -- that the word exists in English. If you happen to know another language well enough and are familiar enough with Wiktionary, you could hop over to a more developed edition like English. But if you search the Russian Wiktionary for "berd", you won't find anything, whereas a spell checker might suggest "bred", "bard", and "bird", among other things.
Many Wikipedia editions have used bots to generate large swaths of content-less articles. You might want to take a look at the arguments some of the bot owners present. [1][2] I'm still not convinced that these editions have a large enough community to handle the influx of what Vietnamese speakers would call "frames" (like the frames of an half-built house, not quite ready for occupancy).
When the Vietnamese Wiktionary imported around 200,000 entries from a free-content dictionary project, we at least had a lot of content to work with. Laurent Bouvier was very helpful in making this work. But the content contained many, many mistakes, both in formatting and content. With a "community" of two regular contributors at any given moment, it's been difficult to correct these errors on a significant scale.
The Vietnamese Wiktionary's errors don't impact its usefulness as much IMHO, because formatting and spelling issues can be corrected systematically and thoroughly by a bot. (I've got one in the works.) You'd need some serious AI to *write* original definitions for tens of thousands of words, and I'm not confident that a community of 500-some can pull off such a huge feat without some outside help (a free-content dictionary, for instance).
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_News#Year_stubs [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_News#Clarification_about_Nepal...
Minh Nguyen mxn@zoomtown.com wrote:
Useful for checking if a word exists (i.e. spell check).
But spell check presents suggestions for correcting your spelling.
Advanced spell check does, certainly. Not the kind you'd find in simple applications, where 'spell check' just highlights the words not in the dictionary--my IM client has this kind of spell check. And the more advanced, the better the suggestions--primitive will go by degree-of-difference, more advanced will check transpositions and nearby letter keys, better will compare against the sounds the letters are trying to represent, and common misspellings. Just because it's not top-of-the-line doesn't mean it's nonexistent.
You'd need some serious AI to *write* original definitions for tens of thousands of words, and I'm not confident that a community of 500-some can pull off such a huge feat without some outside help (a free-content dictionary, for instance).
It'd be silly to expect a bot to compose the entries. But as you say, there's nothing to prevent the information from being imported, if free ones can be found. If they can bot enough to create so many blank templates, they can bot enough to fill them in.
*Muke!
On 2/1/07, Muke Tever muke@frath.net wrote:
Minh Nguyen mxn@zoomtown.com wrote:
Useful for checking if a word exists (i.e. spell check).
But spell check presents suggestions for correcting your spelling.
Advanced spell check does, certainly. Not the kind you'd find in simple applications, where 'spell check' just highlights the words not in the dictionary--my IM client has this kind of spell check. And the more advanced, the better the suggestions--primitive will go by degree-of-difference, more advanced will check transpositions and nearby letter keys, better will compare against the sounds the letters are trying to represent, and common misspellings. Just because it's not top-of-the-line doesn't mean it's nonexistent.
It's all quite off-topic now. But all you need for a good spellchecker is a good wordlist that you can use on existing spellcheck software. It's quite trivial to export a list of titles from a mediawiki database to use for that exact purpose.
Andrew Dunbar (hippietrail)
You'd need some serious AI to *write* original definitions for tens of thousands of words, and I'm not confident that a community of 500-some can pull off such a huge feat without some outside help (a free-content dictionary, for instance).
It'd be silly to expect a bot to compose the entries. But as you say, there's nothing to prevent the information from being imported, if free ones can be found. If they can bot enough to create so many blank templates, they can bot enough to fill them in.
*Muke!-- website: http://frath.net/
Wiktionary-l mailing list Wiktionary-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
wiktionary-l@lists.wikimedia.org