It would be interesting to know what needs to be improved, so... what
prevented you of using the data?
And from which different perspectives?
Cheers,
Micru
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Anders Wennersten <mail(a)anderswennersten.se
wrote:
> we have now spent one year trying to use Wikidata operationally, in our
> botprojects, but found it is impossible in the state it is now, from many
> perspectives. It has been a big disappointment but we hope it will look
> better a year from now
> Anders
>
>
>
> Gerard Meijssen skrev 2014-06-16 12:44:
>
> Hoi,
>> I blogged about Lsjbot.. [1]. I really hope that a lot of attention is
>> given in finding the links to existing items in Wikidata.
>> Thanks,
>> GerardM
>>
>> [1]
>>
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/06/wikipedia-
>> to-bot-or-not-to-bot.html
>>
>>
>> On 16 June 2014 12:25, Anders Wennersten <mail(a)anderswennersten.se>
>
wrote:
>>
>> After having changed job and residence Sverker is now on it again. This
>>> time Lsjbot will generate some 300 000 articles on plant species. The
>>> initiative is now receiving full support and even enthusiasm from the
>>> fellow wikipedians on svwp
>>>
>>> It is now close to one year since the 1M article on insects, animal etc
>>> was generated and we now have had some feedback whereof I here give some
>>> examples
>>> *The students on a university veterinary course was given the assignment
>>> to write article on parasitic worms and put them up om Wikipedia. These
>>> became excellent: complete and voluminous. This was in many way
>>> helped/made
>>> possible by that there already existed Lsjbot stubs with complete
>>> Taxobox,
>>> iw-links, categories and basic sources. The students are expert on
>>> subjects
>>> not the wikispecialities
>>> *the experts on animal etc among our Wikipedians has now shifted focus.
>>> There are species where the authorities disagree on the taxonomy and
>>> here
>>> Lsjbot did not generate any article. among birds there are some 500
>>> disputed species. These articles our experts now work with, highlighting
>>> the disputes, why, what and by whom. And when we compare these manually
>>> created articles we find that on most other language versions, these
>>> only
>>> take data from one authority and are not correctly describing the
>>> dispute.
>>> Perhaps svwp will after this not only be most complete but also most
>>> correct version on species?
>>>
>>> As a side effect (not a goal in itself) we expect svwp to be the second
>>> biggest version, when it comes to number of articles, by August/September
>>>
>>> And when it comes to botgeneration in general, we are continuing our
>>> researcheffort into generate some 0,3-0,5 M articles on geographic
>>> entities
>>> from all over the world by end 2015/2016 using Wikidata as a source.
>>>
>>> Anders
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
--
Etiamsi omnes, ego non