[Foundation-l] Another look a bot creation of articles

Chad innocentkiller at gmail.com
Thu Jul 24 13:30:25 UTC 2008

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Ting Chen <Wing.Philopp at gmx.de> wrote:
>> I couldn't agree more. My major complaint to mass creation of articles by
>> bots is the simple problem of maintainability.
> I personnally don't think that most of articles need to be intensively maintained. Vandals tend to attack articles that are already hot, and these articles are watched carefully already. Vandals the other sort, who launch mass attack indiscriminally are also relatively easy to be detected and handled.
> I believe most of the say bot created gene oder molecule articles would simply stay there, much of them would probably no more be touched. They don't need maintainance.
> But if they have content and information, I feel comfortable if they are there. It often happens that I read about something in a magazine like Scientific American, I would look in Wikipedia after that something to get more information, and often I would then follow the links there to read more.
>> Assuming the English Wikipedia has (more or less) a few thousand
>> dedicated contributors (let's say 3500), that approximates to about
>> 705 articles per person. Now, balloon that number up to 4 million
>> articles, and you now have 1142 articles per person.
> If we reverse this logic, we must put up a policy, that if our dedicated contributors doesn't increase, we must at some point stopp allow people create new articles, because we cannot monitor them all. Personnally I dislike the ideal that my job on Wikipedia is to monitor articles.
> Ting
> --
> GMX Kostenlose Spiele: Einfach online spielen und Spaß haben mit Pastry Passion!
> http://games.entertainment.gmx.net/de/entertainment/games/free/puzzle/6169196
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I never said to stop the number of articles if our userbase doesn't
increase. The
idea is that the userbase (hopefully) increases proportionally to the number of
articles. By normal human creation, this more or less happens. When you add
a bunch of artificially created articles, that fails to happen.

And to say that vandalism doesn't happen on low-viewed articles is
patently wrong.
While "intense maintenance" may be a bit extreme, they at _least_ need someone
to look over them once and awhile to make sure that someone hasn't screwed with


More information about the foundation-l mailing list