How much work would it take to write a tool that would create a stub article, given a
species name, that would be usable by an ordinary user without special training?
-----Original Message-----
From: wikimedia-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Fæ
Sent: 07 July 2015 04:09 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cebuano and Waray-waray Wikipedias among Top 10
From the perspective of a bot writer, and who proposed
the automatic creation of a few thousand drafts for missing English Wikipedia articles for
registered monuments in Wales (the proposal was resisted), I would rather see
auto-creation tools limited to
*suggesting* stub articles on user request. A tool
which suggested to an editor a missing article and gave them a reliably referenced stub,
has the benefits of using available data to boost article creation, attracting newer
editors to try article creation, and ensures that a person always remain responsible for
edits to the encyclopaedia and can be approached about improvement.
P.S. Gerard, you have made over a third of all the posts in this thread during the day it
has run, sometimes overlapping or repeating your earlier points, mostly about Wikidata.
Perhaps you could take a moment to consider whether this helps to attract readers, and
encourages non-regulars to participate, for slightly technical discussions like this?
Thanks,
Fae
--
faewik(a)gmail.com
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
_______________________________________________
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>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.6037 / Virus Database: 4365/10179 - Release Date: 07/07/15