[Wikipedia-l] Easton's Bible Dictionary (resend)
vr at redbird.org
Wed Aug 7 22:02:34 UTC 2002
At 06:29 PM 8/7/02 +0100, Neil Harris wrote:
>This is a trimmed-down version of my earlier over-length post.
All in all, a fine thing; below are a couple of specific suggestions for
>I've now added an extra filter, so that entries whose titles occur in a
>very large list of common words are rejected.
That sounds useful--it'll save us from having to rewrite articles about
spices and such, and provide some useful stuff on less common topics.
>Thus, the script will now not attempt to transfer the entry for "Wheel"
>or "Silk" or other common words, regardless of whether Wikipedia has an
>entry for that word. This is in addition to the check for not clobbering
>I have also eliminated any articles containing the words "modern" or
>"current", which seems to catch a lot of stuff that refers to the
>author's contemporary information.
Again, a good idea: the Easton stuff seems more useful as a source of
information about the Bible as a document than about the contemporary
>I have also pushed the length filter up to 500 characters.
>Doing all of these takes the list down to around 640 filtered articles.
>Wiki links to the non-imported topics still remain, inviting Wikipedians
>to write new articles about these topics. These remaning articles are
>almost entirely about obscure figures and places from the Bible.
>I intend to add a header to each imported article, reading something like:
> ''This is an entry from Easton's Bible Dictionary. The material in it
>is written from the viewpoint of the 19th century, and may be
>out-of-date or biased. Please review and edit this article to bring it
>up to date''
Maybe that could be expanded to note what sort of 19th century viewpoint:
it's clearly Christian, but if it's a particular denomination, that's
can tell immediately that it wasn't put together by a 19th-century Jew,
let alone a Buddhist or atheist).
>and a trailer:
> From [[Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897)]]
>I intend to drip-feed the finished articles in at a rate of one every 20
>minutes, allowing lots of time for human review and assimilation, once
>I think that there is a consensus that this is OK.
>Can anyone suggest any further improvements, short of proof-reading all
One practical fix: when I was editing the [[Amon]] article this morning, I
it linked to itself in a couple of places. Can you tweak the script to not
Also, someone's going to have to proofread the articles--and I'd rather it
with more of an interest in the matter than I have, if only because such a
more likely to catch misspellings of names.
And why not resume at Q or something, instead of back at the beginning of the
vr at redbird.org
More information about the Wikipedia-l