[Wikimedia-l] Which Wikipedias have had large scale bot creation of articles this year?
Anders Wennersten
mail at anderswennersten.se
Wed Nov 27 16:22:13 UTC 2013
Fæ skrev 2013-11-27 15:24
Small error rates are a real challenge. My experience on Commons for
large bot work has been long discussions around quality complaints
where the level of error was *well below 1%*.
Very interesting you also mention this level of problematic articles. We
has found this magnitude in two bot project and our Wikidata project,
all because of some problem with source data. We find they can not be
found during test rounds, as we do not know what type of problems will
turn up (and the articles generated are correct in relation with the
source), and it can often take months for the community to spot them
(like an erroneous name for a river leaving a lake).
When we entered articles manually 0,5% error level would be more then
excellent, but when semiautomated 0,5% can by be seen by the community
as problematic (but hardly by the Wikipedia readers).
And to lower the problematic ones semimanually from 0.5 to 0,1 can
sometime take as much time as the total generation effort
We at sv:wp still have to come to terms with this, but I expect w at the
end must live with this level of problematic articles (not necesary
erronous) , and solve them case by case. We are a relative small
community (1/40 of en:wp) and have to be pragmatic if we want to give
our readers a lot of valuable information
Anders
More information about the Wikimedia-l
mailing list