[WikiEN-l] Medpedia

[Carcharoth]

Fair points. It got me thinking, though. What proportion of Wikipedia
editing is automated? Or rather, what proportion of edits would be
considered "human" as opposed to "something else" (done on autopilot
or using a bot)? This is a different question to what proportion are
automated imports - that sort of question is something I've been
meaning to ask at Commons, and also trying to find out what proportion
of pictures get used in a recognisable way (and what is done with
pictures that are unlikely to ever be used).

Carcharoth

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Sage Ross
<ragesoss+wikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> I recently came across this wiki:
>>
>> http://www.medpedia.com/
>>
>> It seemed a lot better than Wikipedia for what I wanted to look up.
>>
>> Has anyone else come across this wiki before?
>>
>
> It launched to modest fanfare last year, but I hadn't seen much about it since.
>
> It looks like their main focus has been batch imports of content from
> other sources, including lots of full journal articles automatically
> quasi-formatted for the wiki.  Actual human edits seem to be minimal,
> though.  Compare all edits (dominated by automatic imports) versus
> mainspace edits (which trickle in slowly):
>
> http://wiki.medpedia.com/Special:RecentChanges?namespace=0&limit=500&title=Special%3ARecentChanges
> http://wiki.medpedia.com/Special:RecentChanges?namespace=&limit=500&title=Special%3ARecentChanges
>
> -Sage
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>