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

Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Thu Jul 24 13:53:42 UTC 2008

I am involved in a project where protein and chemical information is of
relevance. I disagree strongly that information on proteins is static. I
also doubt that we have the capacity to ensure that the information is
correct. When you are going to allow for this information how will you
ensure that there will be no original research in there ?

I wish I felt as comfortable about these types of information in Wikipedia..
When people believe this information to be true and base there actions on
it, what does this do to our liability.. In the presentation of professor
Bill Wedemeyer <http://wm08reg.wikimedia.org/schedule/speakers/51.en.html>at
Wikimania this idea was considered and rejected. He is with me of the
opinion that this is best left to specialist databases and that a specific
subset of proteins may be of interest, I hope his presentation will be
online soon.

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 3:21 PM, 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

More information about the foundation-l mailing list