[Wikimedia-l] Erik Zachte on bot-generated articles

Ziko van Dijk vandijk at wmnederland.nl
Sun Jun 23 14:09:34 UTC 2013


Please allow me to elaborate on one point partially made earlier.

A good encyclopedic article can only be judged if seen by your own eyes.
Some articles are bot created, but later humans came to work on and make it
a good article with more than just serial or database information. I have
the impression that this happened a lot in the Frisian Wikipedia.

On the other hand, sometimes people let a bot write article code *outside
of Wikipedia*, and then they create the article "by hand". In this way, in
the statistics the article seems to be created by a human. Thus, a high or
low percentage of bot created articles or bot edits does not necessarily
say something about the quality or encyclopediacity (is that a word?) of a
Wikipedia language version.

Kind regards

Am Sonntag, 23. Juni 2013 schrieb David Gerard :

> On 23 June 2013 14:41, David Cuenca <dacuetu at gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > Maybe better when the human generated content is greater than the one
> > originally added by the bot. Otherwise I can imagine someone adding one
> > comma to each article just to make it show up in the stats...
> I would say that worrying about article count rankings as much as
> people are in this thread is largely missing the point, i.e. making
> something that is more useful to readers than nothing at all would be,
> and that (per Erik's original comment) attracts new contributors.
> Article counts are way, way down the list of important considerations.
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Ziko van Dijk
voorzitter / president Wikimedia Nederland
deputy chair Wikimedia Chapters Association Council

Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
Postbus 167
3500 AD Utrecht

More information about the Wikimedia-l mailing list