Re: [Wikimedia-l] Swedish Wikipedia reach 1 million (with support of bots)
On 16/06/13 15:24, Johan Jönsson wrote: 2013/6/16 Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com I think that Anders is saying that the result of Wikimedia Swedish is due to a work of bots and to a work of people. It means that this result is contrary to the WMF strategy which would have more people and more contributors. The next millions of articles will be reached by Polish Wikipedia but also by cebuan Wikipedia and by Warai-Warai Wikipedia. May be it's the time to have only bots to write in Wikipedia? I hope that in future the number of articles will be counted considering at least a small content ad not only a template in a page, because the use like this will discourage the communities of editors. I would say our experience is that it doesn't affect the number of human editors at all in any way. A couple of people run bots that create very short articles about taxons or other stuff that, to be honest, probably wouldn't have been created otherwise. These articles have very few readers. Why on Earth would this discourage us? Our main problem is that browsing Swedish Wikipedia using the random article button isn't as fun as it used to be. That's probably fixable. I am again using the opportunity to remind that all of this will soon be completely unnecessary since it should be possible to generate the articles on the fly from Wikidata data. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Swedish Wikipedia reach 1 million (with support of bots)
In the beginning there were a mass of article created manually that was substandard and which today would not be accepted as proper articles A little later (several year ago now) a mass of articles were botgenerated that were substandard and could not be seen as proper wp:articles We have since long learned how to write good articles created by our editors. We are just now, on a few wikiepdiaverisons, learning how to create good articles by bots, that give both facts, content, context and knowledge (also using the new new valuable tool Wikidata which is a good component but not all that is needed) I am proud to be active in one of these versions mastering this new intellectual challenge, of huge value in providing free knowledge for all. And as shown earlier we have learned that this actually helps recruting and keeping editors Anders Hubertl skrev 2013-06-17 12:09: Payin´ peanuts, gettin´ monkeys Servin´ facts, gettin´ idiots. An unmanageable, not maintainable mass of articles is the best way to breed idiots. Because facts do not create knowledge. If that is our goal, then automatically created Wikipedias ar the best way to solve one of our biggest problems, namely the permanent loss of authors. Maybe it is completely sufficient if you know that somewhere facts are stored in a most possible stupid form. I started more than fifty years ago learning about facts, facts without understanding. But nine years ago I startet to learn something about knowledge, understanding and correlations. Why do not you need people like me? If we have bots now? Do we want to make ourselves more important with impressive numbers? Hubertl! The german language Wikipedia has no single article that was generated by a bot. I'm proud of it. If this would take place in de:WP, many people will leave this project. With certainty. Anyway, that does not matter, a bot is probably much better for monkeys! Am 16.06.2013 14:51, schrieb Nurunnaby Chowdhury: Congratulations swedish wikipedians *Nurunnaby Chowdhury Hasive* Bangladesh Ambassador | Open Knowledge Network Foundation (OKFN)http://www.okfn.org Auto-confirmed, Reviewer Roll backer Editor | Bangla Wikipediahttp://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:nhasive Treasurer Coordinator (PR) | Bangladesh Open Source Network (BdOSN)http://www.bdosn.org Coordinator (PR) | Society for the Popularization of Science, Bangladesh (SPSB) http://www.spsb.org* *Central Team MOVers | Bangladesh Mathematical Olympiad Committee (BdMO)http://www.matholympiad.org.bd Facebook: fb.com/nhasive | Twitter: @nhasivehttp://www.twitter.com/nhasive| Skype: nhasive | www.nhasive.com On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: grattis mina kompisar! *Jag känner en bott, hon heter Lsjbot, Lsjbot heter hon...* It looks like Polish will be the next to hit the symbolic number: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias#100_000.2B_articles wittylama.com Peace, love metadata On 16 June 2013 22:39, Tonmoy Khan tonmoy...@gmail.com wrote: Congratulations!!! Tonmoy On Jun 16, 2013 6:30 PM, Patricio Lorente patricio.lore...@gmail.com wrote: Congratulations to the swedish wikipedians! 2013/6/16 Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se: Yesterday sv:wp reached 1 M articles. The one who did the passing was a bot generated article of a butterfly http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erysichton_elaborata. The bot behind this article is Lsjbot who creates articles from the database Catalogue of Life http://www.catalogueoflife.org/services/res/2011AC_26July.zip which (complemented by other databases) which holds data of around 1.5 million species. The bot genrates about 5000 new articles per day and has generated just under 400 000 of the sv:wps million and continues... The guy who runs he bot is a member of the Swedish chapters board http://se.wikimedia.org/wiki/Kandidater_2013/Sverker_Johansson and is in his civil life a University teacher. In this capacity he is also a guest lecturer at the university of the Phillipines where he stayed the last couple of months (and the bot was on hold). He is there active in Cebuano-Wikipedia http://ceb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unang_Panid and supporting their local community, and he is now running his bot on their wikipedia as well as on the Warai-Warai Wikipedia http://war.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syahan_nga_Pakli. So perhaps at the end of the year these two language versions will also pass the 1 million mark! Anders PS out other major botgenerating effort of all lakes in Sweden is also making very nice progress, done 25% of all DS ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Patricio Lorente Blog: http://www.patriciolorente.com.ar Identi.ca // Twitter: @patriciolorente ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Swedish Wikipedia reach 1 million (with supportof bots)
I agree that the 100th article is much better than no article on the subject, and I too joined the project with no previous training - Original Message - From: Balázs Viczián balazs.vicz...@wikimedia.hu To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 2:05 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Swedish Wikipedia reach 1 million (with supportof bots) I am totally supportive of the idea to create articles in this way if they are more than a simple infobox with 5-6 stats in it. The bot generated form [1] of the millionth Swedish article is where these bot generated articles can start from; a useful stub. If we take seriously this collect the sum of all knowledge bla bla, then absolutely ok to generate such articles, moreover it should be done wherever, whenever possible (like with the Swedish lakes). Having zillions of articles will generate a lot of new editors from the simple fact that more people will have chance (and larger chance) to bump into wiki articles while browsing the internet. Or in an easier form: Wikipedia will reach more people by cover more and more topics in a more an more detailed form. The first problem, you mention is who will maintain them. Well, probably those who join through this massive expansion; who are already interested in butterflies and actively learning about them on the net. Or those who find their favourite fishing lake on Wiki and add some pictures and a bit more detailed info about them. The other problem what you're describing is that all of these future new editors will be unqualified (ni your wording idiots) while all the chapters are heavily working on creating qualified editors through their various education programs. My question is: is this really a problem? How many of you joined Wikipedia after being educated how to edit and stuff and how many of you joined by bumping into articles so many times that you've eventually started editing them? How many of you started as idiots? I did. Balázs [1] http://sv.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erysichton_elaborataoldid=21735451 2013/6/17 Hubertl hubert.la...@gmx.at Payin´ peanuts, gettin´ monkeys Servin´ facts, gettin´ idiots. An unmanageable, not maintainable mass of articles is the best way to breed idiots. Because facts do not create knowledge. If that is our goal, then automatically created Wikipedias ar the best way to solve one of our biggest problems, namely the permanent loss of authors. Maybe it is completely sufficient if you know that somewhere facts are stored in a most possible stupid form. I started more than fifty years ago learning about facts, facts without understanding. But nine years ago I startet to learn something about knowledge, understanding and correlations. Why do not you need people like me? If we have bots now? Do we want to make ourselves more important with impressive numbers? Hubertl! The german language Wikipedia has no single article that was generated by a bot. I'm proud of it. If this would take place in de:WP, many people will leave this project. With certainty. Anyway, that does not matter, a bot is probably much better for monkeys! Am 16.06.2013 14:51, schrieb Nurunnaby Chowdhury: Congratulations swedish wikipedians *Nurunnaby Chowdhury Hasive* Bangladesh Ambassador | Open Knowledge Network Foundation (OKFN)http://www.okfn.org Auto-confirmed, Reviewer Roll backer Editor | Bangla Wikipediahttp://bn.wikipedia.**org/wiki/user:nhasivehttp://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:nhasive Treasurer Coordinator (PR) | Bangladesh Open Source Network (BdOSN)http://www.bdosn.org Coordinator (PR) | Society for the Popularization of Science, Bangladesh (SPSB) http://www.spsb.org* *Central Team MOVers | Bangladesh Mathematical Olympiad Committee (BdMO)http://www.**matholympiad.org.bd http://www.matholympiad.org.bd Facebook: fb.com/nhasive | Twitter: @nhasivehttp://www.twitter.**com/nhasivehttp://www.twitter.com/nhasive| Skype: nhasive | www.nhasive.com On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: grattis mina kompisar! *Jag känner en bott, hon heter Lsjbot, Lsjbot heter hon...* It looks like Polish will be the next to hit the symbolic number: http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/List_of_Wikipedias#100_** 000.2B_articleshttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias#100_000.2B_articles wittylama.com Peace, love metadata On 16 June 2013 22:39, Tonmoy Khan tonmoy...@gmail.com wrote: Congratulations!!! Tonmoy On Jun 16, 2013 6:30 PM, Patricio Lorente patricio.lore...@gmail.com wrote: Congratulations to the swedish wikipedians! 2013/6/16 Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se: Yesterday sv:wp reached 1 M articles. The one who did the passing was a bot generated article of a butterfly http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Erysichton_elaboratahttp://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erysichton_elaborata . The bot behind this article is Lsjbot who creates articles from the database
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Swedish Wikipedia reach 1 million (with support of bots)
On 17.06.2013 12:36, Nikola Smolenski wrote: On 16/06/13 15:24, Johan Jönsson wrote: 2013/6/16 Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com I think that Anders is saying that the result of Wikimedia Swedish is due to a work of bots and to a work of people. It means that this result is contrary to the WMF strategy which would have more people and more contributors. The next millions of articles will be reached by Polish Wikipedia but also by cebuan Wikipedia and by Warai-Warai Wikipedia. May be it's the time to have only bots to write in Wikipedia? I hope that in future the number of articles will be counted considering at least a small content ad not only a template in a page, because the use like this will discourage the communities of editors. I would say our experience is that it doesn't affect the number of human editors at all in any way. A couple of people run bots that create very short articles about taxons or other stuff that, to be honest, probably wouldn't have been created otherwise. These articles have very few readers. Why on Earth would this discourage us? Our main problem is that browsing Swedish Wikipedia using the random article button isn't as fun as it used to be. That's probably fixable. I am again using the opportunity to remind that all of this will soon be completely unnecessary since it should be possible to generate the articles on the fly from Wikidata data. you mean to generate on the fly only articles of this kind, not any article. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Swedish Wikipedia reach 1 million (with supportof bots)
Instead i agree that it's much better to have one qualitative article about the topic than 10 stubs. One of the strategic goal of the plan of wikimedia movement is the quality. Il giorno 17/giu/2013 14:28, Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net ha scritto: I agree that the 100th article is much better than no article on the subject, and I too joined the project with no previous training - Original Message - From: Balázs Viczián balazs.vicz...@wikimedia.hu To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**orgwikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 2:05 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Swedish Wikipedia reach 1 million (with supportof bots) I am totally supportive of the idea to create articles in this way if they are more than a simple infobox with 5-6 stats in it. The bot generated form [1] of the millionth Swedish article is where these bot generated articles can start from; a useful stub. If we take seriously this collect the sum of all knowledge bla bla, then absolutely ok to generate such articles, moreover it should be done wherever, whenever possible (like with the Swedish lakes). Having zillions of articles will generate a lot of new editors from the simple fact that more people will have chance (and larger chance) to bump into wiki articles while browsing the internet. Or in an easier form: Wikipedia will reach more people by cover more and more topics in a more an more detailed form. The first problem, you mention is who will maintain them. Well, probably those who join through this massive expansion; who are already interested in butterflies and actively learning about them on the net. Or those who find their favourite fishing lake on Wiki and add some pictures and a bit more detailed info about them. The other problem what you're describing is that all of these future new editors will be unqualified (ni your wording idiots) while all the chapters are heavily working on creating qualified editors through their various education programs. My question is: is this really a problem? How many of you joined Wikipedia after being educated how to edit and stuff and how many of you joined by bumping into articles so many times that you've eventually started editing them? How many of you started as idiots? I did. Balázs [1] http://sv.wikipedia.org/w/**index.php?title=Erysichton_** elaborataoldid=21735451http://sv.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erysichton_elaborataoldid=21735451 2013/6/17 Hubertl hubert.la...@gmx.at Payin´ peanuts, gettin´ monkeys Servin´ facts, gettin´ idiots. An unmanageable, not maintainable mass of articles is the best way to breed idiots. Because facts do not create knowledge. If that is our goal, then automatically created Wikipedias ar the best way to solve one of our biggest problems, namely the permanent loss of authors. Maybe it is completely sufficient if you know that somewhere facts are stored in a most possible stupid form. I started more than fifty years ago learning about facts, facts without understanding. But nine years ago I startet to learn something about knowledge, understanding and correlations. Why do not you need people like me? If we have bots now? Do we want to make ourselves more important with impressive numbers? Hubertl! The german language Wikipedia has no single article that was generated by a bot. I'm proud of it. If this would take place in de:WP, many people will leave this project. With certainty. Anyway, that does not matter, a bot is probably much better for monkeys! Am 16.06.2013 14:51, schrieb Nurunnaby Chowdhury: Congratulations swedish wikipedians *Nurunnaby Chowdhury Hasive* Bangladesh Ambassador | Open Knowledge Network Foundation (OKFN)http://www.okfn.org Auto-confirmed, Reviewer Roll backer Editor | Bangla Wikipediahttp://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:nhasivehttp:/** /bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:**nhasivehttp://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:nhasive Treasurer Coordinator (PR) | Bangladesh Open Source Network (BdOSN)http://www.bdosn.org Coordinator (PR) | Society for the Popularization of Science, Bangladesh (SPSB) http://www.spsb.org* *Central Team MOVers | Bangladesh Mathematical Olympiad Committee (BdMO)http://www.**matholympi**ad.org.bd http://matholympiad.org.bd http://www.matholympiad.org.**bd http://www.matholympiad.org.bd Facebook: fb.com/nhasive | Twitter: @nhasivehttp://www.twitter.com/nhasivehttp://www.** twitter.com/nhasive http://www.twitter.com/nhasive| Skype: nhasive | www.nhasive.com On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: grattis mina kompisar! *Jag känner en bott, hon heter Lsjbot, Lsjbot heter hon...* It looks like Polish will be the next to hit the symbolic number: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias#100_**http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/List_of_Wikipedias#100_**
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Swedish Wikipedia reach 1 million (with supportof bots)
2013/6/17 Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com One of the strategic goal of the plan of wikimedia movement is the quality. That is true. However, the strategic plan does not go into detail on how to measure it. Is it an article that only has claims backed by sources? If so, the bot-generated articles are very high-quality. Is it a featured article? Then I guess that reaching the goal of 25% will be pretty tough. Actually, the most reasonable way to reach that goal, having 12,5 million quality articles in two years, is to use some sort of automation. /Jan Ainali Il giorno 17/giu/2013 14:28, Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net ha scritto: I agree that the 100th article is much better than no article on the subject, and I too joined the project with no previous training - Original Message - From: Balázs Viczián balazs.vicz...@wikimedia.hu To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 2:05 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Swedish Wikipedia reach 1 million (with supportof bots) I am totally supportive of the idea to create articles in this way if they are more than a simple infobox with 5-6 stats in it. The bot generated form [1] of the millionth Swedish article is where these bot generated articles can start from; a useful stub. If we take seriously this collect the sum of all knowledge bla bla, then absolutely ok to generate such articles, moreover it should be done wherever, whenever possible (like with the Swedish lakes). Having zillions of articles will generate a lot of new editors from the simple fact that more people will have chance (and larger chance) to bump into wiki articles while browsing the internet. Or in an easier form: Wikipedia will reach more people by cover more and more topics in a more an more detailed form. The first problem, you mention is who will maintain them. Well, probably those who join through this massive expansion; who are already interested in butterflies and actively learning about them on the net. Or those who find their favourite fishing lake on Wiki and add some pictures and a bit more detailed info about them. The other problem what you're describing is that all of these future new editors will be unqualified (ni your wording idiots) while all the chapters are heavily working on creating qualified editors through their various education programs. My question is: is this really a problem? How many of you joined Wikipedia after being educated how to edit and stuff and how many of you joined by bumping into articles so many times that you've eventually started editing them? How many of you started as idiots? I did. Balázs [1] http://sv.wikipedia.org/w/**index.php?title=Erysichton_** elaborataoldid=21735451 http://sv.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erysichton_elaborataoldid=21735451 2013/6/17 Hubertl hubert.la...@gmx.at Payin´ peanuts, gettin´ monkeys Servin´ facts, gettin´ idiots. An unmanageable, not maintainable mass of articles is the best way to breed idiots. Because facts do not create knowledge. If that is our goal, then automatically created Wikipedias ar the best way to solve one of our biggest problems, namely the permanent loss of authors. Maybe it is completely sufficient if you know that somewhere facts are stored in a most possible stupid form. I started more than fifty years ago learning about facts, facts without understanding. But nine years ago I startet to learn something about knowledge, understanding and correlations. Why do not you need people like me? If we have bots now? Do we want to make ourselves more important with impressive numbers? Hubertl! The german language Wikipedia has no single article that was generated by a bot. I'm proud of it. If this would take place in de:WP, many people will leave this project. With certainty. Anyway, that does not matter, a bot is probably much better for monkeys! Am 16.06.2013 14:51, schrieb Nurunnaby Chowdhury: Congratulations swedish wikipedians *Nurunnaby Chowdhury Hasive* Bangladesh Ambassador | Open Knowledge Network Foundation (OKFN)http://www.okfn.org Auto-confirmed, Reviewer Roll backer Editor | Bangla Wikipediahttp://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:nhasivehttp:/** /bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:**nhasive http://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:nhasive Treasurer Coordinator (PR) | Bangladesh Open Source Network (BdOSN)http://www.bdosn.org Coordinator (PR) | Society for the Popularization of Science, Bangladesh (SPSB) http://www.spsb.org* *Central Team MOVers | Bangladesh Mathematical Olympiad Committee (BdMO)http://www.**matholympi**ad.org.bd http://matholympiad.org.bd http://www.matholympiad.org.**bd http://www.matholympiad.org.bd Facebook: fb.com/nhasive | Twitter:
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Swedish Wikipedia reach 1 million (with support of bots)
The use of wikidata instead of a bot is a good practice to provude good contant to all wikipedias because larger communities can control and fix errors instead of providing content by a bot and keep it outdated. Il giorno 17/giu/2013 15:53, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com ha scritto: Hoi, Please consider there are over 280 Wikipedias in as many languages. In many languages we have few articles. Providing information is our mission. We aim to provide well written articles. The argument is that we do not succeed at that. Actually it is not an argument, it is a fact. When the Germans feel they do not need bot generated articles, more power to them, when they assume that their example is to be copied I truly wonder if they understand the lack of resources in so many languages. It is fairly easy to find articles that are considered relevant to a sizable group of the German populace that are missing.. I am working towards providing this information by using Wikidata. The best part (for the Germans) is that I urge them to make sure that these articles exist and are well written .. in German. Thanks, GerardM PS I blogged about how this can be done several times in the past On 17 June 2013 15:43, Dimce Grozdanoski dimce.grozdano...@gmail.com wrote: On 17.06.2013 12:36, Nikola Smolenski wrote: On 16/06/13 15:24, Johan Jönsson wrote: 2013/6/16 Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com I think that Anders is saying that the result of Wikimedia Swedish is due to a work of bots and to a work of people. It means that this result is contrary to the WMF strategy which would have more people and more contributors. The next millions of articles will be reached by Polish Wikipedia but also by cebuan Wikipedia and by Warai-Warai Wikipedia. May be it's the time to have only bots to write in Wikipedia? I hope that in future the number of articles will be counted considering at least a small content ad not only a template in a page, because the use like this will discourage the communities of editors. I would say our experience is that it doesn't affect the number of human editors at all in any way. A couple of people run bots that create very short articles about taxons or other stuff that, to be honest, probably wouldn't have been created otherwise. These articles have very few readers. Why on Earth would this discourage us? Our main problem is that browsing Swedish Wikipedia using the random article button isn't as fun as it used to be. That's probably fixable. I am again using the opportunity to remind that all of this will soon be completely unnecessary since it should be possible to generate the articles on the fly from Wikidata data. you mean to generate on the fly only articles of this kind, not any article. __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia in jail!
Wikipedia for prisoners – an unexpected partnership between a swiss prison and Wikimedia CH Following an initiative from Emmanuel Engelhart, with the support of Wikimedia CH CAO, Chantal Ebongué, since March 2013, prisoners who request can have an access to Wikipedia offline (Kiwix project). The idea is to stimulate or to support the interest for education of prisoners who were, for a large majority, condemned to long-time sentences. After three months of pilot phasis, the project is successful : Among the 36 prisoners of the Bellevue’s prison in Gorgier, 18 possess or rent a computer. All of them requested the upload of Wikipedia offline on their PC. For security reasons, swiss prisoners have a very restricted access to internet. More informations in the press releases (ENG, DE, FR, IT) that was sent today to the swiss media Regards, Charles ___ Charles ANDRES, Chairman Wikimedia CH – Association for the advancement of free knowledge – www.wikimedia.ch Office +41 (0)21 340 66 20 Skype: charles.andres.wmch IRC://irc.freenode.net/wikimedia-ch ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Toby Negrin joins Wikimedia Foundation as Director of Analytics
Hello all, it’s my great pleasure to announce that as of today, Toby Negrin is joining the Wikimedia Foundation as the new Director of Analytics. Toby will be responsible for leading the analytics team, which is responsible for enabling data-driven decisions in the Wikimedia Foundation and the broader Wikimedia community. As of today, the team consists of: Diederik van Liere, Dario Taraborelli, Andrew Otto, Evan Rosen, Dan Andreescu, Stefan Petrea (contractor), Erik Zachte (part-time), and Aaron Halfaker (contractor). Newly integrated into the team are Dario, Evan and Aaron. Toby joins us from DeNA (formerly ngmoco), a $2B Japanese mobile gaming company where he was Director of Analytics in the US from 2011 to 2013. He enabled data-informed decision making throughout the company, established an Insights team and scaled the Analytics team to 21 members. He managed a 300+ node Hadoop platform, multiple data driven applications and led the effort to open source Mobilize, a script deployment and dataviz framework developed in-house at DeNA. Prior to DeNA, Toby was Director of Product Management for Cloud Platforms and Hadoop at Yahoo! from 2008-2011. Leading 10 PMs at peak, through this group Toby was responsible for interfacing between the hundreds of internal users of analytics, storage and other cloud services and the developers/maintainers of said infrastructure. There aren’t many jobs that could prepare you for Wikimedia’s complex network of analytics stakeholders, but this surely is one of them. Toby has worked as a software engineer for many years and holds a BS Equivalent in Computer Science from California State University, an MBA from NIMBAS Graduate School of Management in Utrecht, and a BA in Visual Culture and History from University of California, Santa Cruz. After growing up in the Bay Area, Toby’s lived recently in Stockholm and Amsterdam so he’s using his spare time to explore California’s wilderness on two feet and two wheels with his family. His two daughters keep him pretty busy! Toby is looking forward to making the shift to a mission-driven non-profit organization. When I asked him what he’d be doing if not Wikimedia, he expressed an interest in urban planning, green cities, and public transport. In an alternative universe, San Francisco is becoming a greener city with a more reliable public transport system. In this one, we get awesome Wikimedia analytics instead. There are always tradeoffs. ;-) Toby’s incredibly excited about working with the team to tackle Wikimedia’s analytics challenges and the increasing hunger for data across the organization and the movement. Please join me in welcoming him on board. :-) All best, Erik -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation ___ Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia in jail!
Now THIS is seriously clever! Well done WMCH - that is a truly innovative way to provide access to knowledge to a community who is often forgotten. Can you link to the press release here, please? -Liam / Wittylama wittylama.com Peace, love metadata On 17 June 2013 14:15, Charles Andrès charles.andres.w...@gmail.com wrote: Wikipedia for prisoners – an unexpected partnership between a swiss prison and Wikimedia CH Following an initiative from Emmanuel Engelhart, with the support of Wikimedia CH CAO, Chantal Ebongué, since March 2013, prisoners who request can have an access to Wikipedia offline (Kiwix project). The idea is to stimulate or to support the interest for education of prisoners who were, for a large majority, condemned to long-time sentences. After three months of pilot phasis, the project is successful : Among the 36 prisoners of the Bellevue’s prison in Gorgier, 18 possess or rent a computer. All of them requested the upload of Wikipedia offline on their PC. For security reasons, swiss prisoners have a very restricted access to internet. More informations in the press releases (ENG, DE, FR, IT) that was sent today to the swiss media Regards, Charles ___ Charles ANDRES, Chairman Wikimedia CH – Association for the advancement of free knowledge – www.wikimedia.ch Office +41 (0)21 340 66 20 Skype: charles.andres.wmch IRC://irc.freenode.net/wikimedia-ch ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Swedish Wikipedia reach 1 million (with support of bots)
We just published a blog post from Lennart Guldbransson on the Wikimedia blog about this milestone: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/06/17/swedish-wikipedia-1-million-articles/ On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 7:12 AM, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: The use of wikidata instead of a bot is a good practice to provude good contant to all wikipedias because larger communities can control and fix errors instead of providing content by a bot and keep it outdated. Il giorno 17/giu/2013 15:53, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com ha scritto: Hoi, Please consider there are over 280 Wikipedias in as many languages. In many languages we have few articles. Providing information is our mission. We aim to provide well written articles. The argument is that we do not succeed at that. Actually it is not an argument, it is a fact. When the Germans feel they do not need bot generated articles, more power to them, when they assume that their example is to be copied I truly wonder if they understand the lack of resources in so many languages. It is fairly easy to find articles that are considered relevant to a sizable group of the German populace that are missing.. I am working towards providing this information by using Wikidata. The best part (for the Germans) is that I urge them to make sure that these articles exist and are well written .. in German. Thanks, GerardM PS I blogged about how this can be done several times in the past On 17 June 2013 15:43, Dimce Grozdanoski dimce.grozdano...@gmail.com wrote: On 17.06.2013 12:36, Nikola Smolenski wrote: On 16/06/13 15:24, Johan Jönsson wrote: 2013/6/16 Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com I think that Anders is saying that the result of Wikimedia Swedish is due to a work of bots and to a work of people. It means that this result is contrary to the WMF strategy which would have more people and more contributors. The next millions of articles will be reached by Polish Wikipedia but also by cebuan Wikipedia and by Warai-Warai Wikipedia. May be it's the time to have only bots to write in Wikipedia? I hope that in future the number of articles will be counted considering at least a small content ad not only a template in a page, because the use like this will discourage the communities of editors. I would say our experience is that it doesn't affect the number of human editors at all in any way. A couple of people run bots that create very short articles about taxons or other stuff that, to be honest, probably wouldn't have been created otherwise. These articles have very few readers. Why on Earth would this discourage us? Our main problem is that browsing Swedish Wikipedia using the random article button isn't as fun as it used to be. That's probably fixable. I am again using the opportunity to remind that all of this will soon be completely unnecessary since it should be possible to generate the articles on the fly from Wikidata data. you mean to generate on the fly only articles of this kind, not any article. __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Matthew Roth Global Communications Manager Wikimedia Foundation +1.415.839.6885 ext 6635 www.wikimediafoundation.org *http://blog.wikimedia.org/* ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] If you are passionate about world hunger, sustainability and global issues please read this
Homepage: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Economic_Map The goal of this project is to improve public understanding economic data and serve public administration. It's time that we create a standardized model that everyone can understand and relate to. Given the challenges that our world faces today, our civilization must realize the economic reality that we live in. Global warming, world hunger, education and unemployment are all economic issues that require a new perspective. The voting public must be provided the materials to properly allocate resources. We can end world hunger with foreign aid. We can create a modern day renaissance by building schools around the world. We should put more public money RD into renewable energies and create a cheaper alternative. The world must understand wake up to the reality. This format can be repeated for all 196 countries, every locality and city. There can also be a standardized format for every company (model does not exist yet). Countries ranked by 2011 GDP 1. United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States 2. China: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_China 3. Japan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_Japan 4. Germany: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_Germany 5. France: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_France 6. Brazil: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_Brazil 7. United Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom 8. Italy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economic_summary_of_Italy 9. India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economic_summary_of_India 10. Russia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economic_summary_of_Russia ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] If you are passionate about world hunger, sustainability and global issues please read this
Wouldn't this fall within the scope of [[WP:Outlines]] already, and therefore doesn't need its sister project? Future developments of Wikidata will make it even easier for such articles on Wikipedia to be updated. On 17 June 2013 19:56, Alex Peek alexpe...@gmail.com wrote: Homepage: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Economic_Map The goal of this project is to improve public understanding economic data and serve public administration. It's time that we create a standardized model that everyone can understand and relate to. Given the challenges that our world faces today, our civilization must realize the economic reality that we live in. Global warming, world hunger, education and unemployment are all economic issues that require a new perspective. The voting public must be provided the materials to properly allocate resources. We can end world hunger with foreign aid. We can create a modern day renaissance by building schools around the world. We should put more public money RD into renewable energies and create a cheaper alternative. The world must understand wake up to the reality. This format can be repeated for all 196 countries, every locality and city. There can also be a standardized format for every company (model does not exist yet). Countries ranked by 2011 GDP 1. United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States 2. China: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_China 3. Japan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_Japan 4. Germany: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_Germany 5. France: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_France 6. Brazil: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_Brazil 7. United Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom 8. Italy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economic_summary_of_Italy 9. India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economic_summary_of_India 10. Russia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economic_summary_of_Russia ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] If you are passionate about world hunger, sustainability and global issues please read this
Deryck, I re-read your message and i looked up the [[WP:outline]] feature. Looks interesting, thanks for showing me that. On 17 June 2013 12:07, Alex Peek alexpe...@gmail.com wrote: I do not intend that this become a new sister project. I am simply using Wikipedia as a platform to consolidate the data. This project is oriented for public administration. Wikidata serves a different goal. On 17 June 2013 12:00, Deryck Chan deryckc...@wikimedia.hk wrote: Wouldn't this fall within the scope of [[WP:Outlines]] already, and therefore doesn't need its sister project? Future developments of Wikidata will make it even easier for such articles on Wikipedia to be updated. On 17 June 2013 19:56, Alex Peek alexpe...@gmail.com wrote: Homepage: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Economic_Map The goal of this project is to improve public understanding economic data and serve public administration. It's time that we create a standardized model that everyone can understand and relate to. Given the challenges that our world faces today, our civilization must realize the economic reality that we live in. Global warming, world hunger, education and unemployment are all economic issues that require a new perspective. The voting public must be provided the materials to properly allocate resources. We can end world hunger with foreign aid. We can create a modern day renaissance by building schools around the world. We should put more public money RD into renewable energies and create a cheaper alternative. The world must understand wake up to the reality. This format can be repeated for all 196 countries, every locality and city. There can also be a standardized format for every company (model does not exist yet). Countries ranked by 2011 GDP 1. United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States 2. China: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_China 3. Japan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_Japan 4. Germany: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_Germany 5. France: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_France 6. Brazil: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_Brazil 7. United Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom 8. Italy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economic_summary_of_Italy 9. India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economic_summary_of_India 10. Russia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economic_summary_of_Russia ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Swedish Wikipedia reach 1 million (with support of bots)
Hubertl, your e-mail was rude, even if you did not mean it to be. Please remember hundreds of people read every e-mail sent to this list, and civility is expected. Thanks, Asaf On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Per A.J. Andersson p...@telia.com wrote: Hi! Nice to know German language Wikipedia is full of sane people. Good for you. But maybe you don't need bots, so that's your decision. (You do not need infoboxes either, as I see it, and that's also your decision. Lsjbot makes infoboxes, among other things.) Yes, a larger database is more of a burden to support than a smaller one. Our experience at svwp is that automated help does not take away from the human part of the user community. Personally I think a larger database of comparable quality (built by any method) makes for a larger footprint = a greater chance of catching new editors. Wikipedia did that for me. My view on it is that larger communities can sustain and maintain a certain database easier than smaller communities. Wikipedia communities to a large extent depend on the language size surrounding it. We already have automation around us at several levels, and there are editing tools that make for faster editing – by humans. The use of these are seldom questioned. Best of wishes, /Per A.J. Andersson user Paracel63 at svwp (carbon-based lifeform from Sweden) 2013-06-17, 12:09, skrev Hubertl: Payin´ peanuts, gettin´ monkeys Servin´ facts, gettin´ idiots. An unmanageable, not maintainable mass of articles is the best way to breed idiots. Because facts do not create knowledge. If that is our goal, then automatically created Wikipedias ar the best way to solve one of our biggest problems, namely the permanent loss of authors. Maybe it is completely sufficient if you know that somewhere facts are stored in a most possible stupid form. I started more than fifty years ago learning about facts, facts without understanding. But nine years ago I startet to learn something about knowledge, understanding and correlations. Why do not you need people like me? If we have bots now? Do we want to make ourselves more important with impressive numbers? Hubertl! The german language Wikipedia has no single article that was generated by a bot. I'm proud of it. If this would take place in de:WP, many people will leave this project. With certainty. Anyway, that does not matter, a bot is probably much better for monkeys! __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Fwd: Re: Swedish Wikipedia reach 1 million (with supportof bots)
Am 17.06.2013 16:01, schrieb Jan Ainali: 2013/6/17 Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com One of the strategic goal of the plan of wikimedia movement is the quality. That is true. However, the strategic plan does not go into detail on how to measure it. Is it an article that only has claims backed by sources? If so, the bot-generated articles are very high-quality. Is it a featured article? Then I guess that reaching the goal of 25% will be pretty tough. Actually, the most reasonable way to reach that goal, having 12,5 million quality articles in two years, is to use some sort of automation. /Jan Ainali i don´t want to repeat all those arguments already quoted (lennard already mentioned achim raschkas criticism, which i fully agree with), since what happend, already happend, and will unstoppably happen in the future. but i would say first of all the strategic goal is not to contribute hundreds of mistakes a day. just to take the 1 millionth article Erysichton elaborata: after an advice on the talk page a HUMAN added, that the species is probably synonymized with Erysichton palmyra. so far, so good. but even this correction is not enough. in 2010 the genus erysichton was redefined and a new genus, jameela was described. both taxa now desrcibed as in sv.wikipedia are invalid. so just concerning this tiny tiny group of articles, there is already a bunch of mistakes, the bot copied out of outdated databases. wouldn´t be a big deal, if somebody mentioned that the articles sticked to the old view. but that´s something a bot can´t handle. so how reliable is the rest of the articles? a bot can be a convenient helper for authors, who know, how to handle it, as it seems has happened with the creation of the articles about swedish lakes (i´m no expert with that though). but it is a desastrous tool for our whole movement, if you create hundreds of thousands (!) articles, without the slightest idea, how to handle the contradictions, that will appear doubtlessly? it´s a sad thing, that you mention quality and this action in one centence... truly utterly disappointed encyclopedic greetings, kurt -- Mag. Kurt Kulac, Obmann ___ Wikimedia Österreich Gesellschaft zur Förderung freien Wissens Siebensterngasse 25/15, 1070 Wien www.wikimedia.at +43 664 4128615 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Fwd: Re: Swedish Wikipedia reach 1 million (with supportof bots)
Hi! Sad for seeing you so disappointed. Good to see you have insight in butterflies. So I hope you will make your knowledge visible on dewp, where neither genera so far have found its way into articles. enwp (together with viwp!) has at least the genus Jameela as an article. That aside, is it really a disaster that svwp relies on scientific texts that was unquestioned until three years ago? I think maybe there are more pressing concerns in the development of our wikipedias. Best of wishes, /Per Paracel63 at svwp 2013-06-17, 22:29, skrev Kurt Kulac: i don´t want to repeat all those arguments already quoted (lennard already mentioned achim raschkas criticism, which i fully agree with), since what happend, already happend, and will unstoppably happen in the future. but i would say first of all the strategic goal is not to contribute hundreds of mistakes a day. just to take the 1 millionth article Erysichton elaborata: after an advice on the talk page a HUMAN added, that the species is probably synonymized with Erysichton palmyra. so far, so good. but even this correction is not enough. in 2010 the genus erysichton was redefined and a new genus, jameela was described. both taxa now desrcibed as in sv.wikipedia are invalid. so just concerning this tiny tiny group of articles, there is already a bunch of mistakes, the bot copied out of outdated databases. wouldn´t be a big deal, if somebody mentioned that the articles sticked to the old view. but that´s something a bot can´t handle. so how reliable is the rest of the articles? a bot can be a convenient helper for authors, who know, how to handle it, as it seems has happened with the creation of the articles about swedish lakes (i´m no expert with that though). but it is a desastrous tool for our whole movement, if you create hundreds of thousands (!) articles, without the slightest idea, how to handle the contradictions, that will appear doubtlessly? it´s a sad thing, that you mention quality and this action in one centence... truly utterly disappointed encyclopedic greetings, kurt ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Fwd: Re: Swedish Wikipedia reach 1 million (with supportof bots)
As far as I know, that's even planned by the Wikidata team. Cheers Martin 2013/6/18 Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nl Hello, I am also unhappy with the mail from Hubertl, and also some remarks that good be understood as a criticism of the German Wikipedia editing community. Actually, both opinions coexist also in de.WP, although the anti bot faction is obviously stronger. My concern is that bot articles usually stay the same and don't grow much. They give a bad impression about a Wikipedia language version, and there is no one to update them. Maybe it would be better to support WikiData and later find a solution with WikiData to provide data to small or large Wikipedia language versions. Kind regards Ziko Ziko van Dijk voorzitter / president Wikimedia Nederland deputy chair Wikimedia Chapters Association Council Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland Postbus 167 3500 AD Utrecht http://wikimedia.nl 2013/6/17 Per A.J. Andersson p...@telia.com Hi! Sad for seeing you so disappointed. Good to see you have insight in butterflies. So I hope you will make your knowledge visible on dewp, where neither genera so far have found its way into articles. enwp (together with viwp!) has at least the genus Jameela as an article. That aside, is it really a disaster that svwp relies on scientific texts that was unquestioned until three years ago? I think maybe there are more pressing concerns in the development of our wikipedias. Best of wishes, /Per Paracel63 at svwp 2013-06-17, 22:29, skrev Kurt Kulac: i don´t want to repeat all those arguments already quoted (lennard already mentioned achim raschkas criticism, which i fully agree with), since what happend, already happend, and will unstoppably happen in the future. but i would say first of all the strategic goal is not to contribute hundreds of mistakes a day. just to take the 1 millionth article Erysichton elaborata: after an advice on the talk page a HUMAN added, that the species is probably synonymized with Erysichton palmyra. so far, so good. but even this correction is not enough. in 2010 the genus erysichton was redefined and a new genus, jameela was described. both taxa now desrcibed as in sv.wikipedia are invalid. so just concerning this tiny tiny group of articles, there is already a bunch of mistakes, the bot copied out of outdated databases. wouldn´t be a big deal, if somebody mentioned that the articles sticked to the old view. but that´s something a bot can´t handle. so how reliable is the rest of the articles? a bot can be a convenient helper for authors, who know, how to handle it, as it seems has happened with the creation of the articles about swedish lakes (i´m no expert with that though). but it is a desastrous tool for our whole movement, if you create hundreds of thousands (!) articles, without the slightest idea, how to handle the contradictions, that will appear doubtlessly? it´s a sad thing, that you mention quality and this action in one centence... truly utterly disappointed encyclopedic greetings, kurt __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. Obentrautstr. 72 10963 Berlin Telefon 030 - 219 158 26-0 www.wikimedia.de Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei! http://spenden.wikimedia.de/ Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Swedish Wikipedia reach 1 million (with support of bots)
Hi Asaf, did you read my mail or is this an automated answer because of using the word monkey? Or is this a just a try like an official muzzle? Really rude for me is, when some Wikipedians think, they have to start a professional service company for transporting simple facts without efforts to transport and support knowlede to and from people. Especially if it turns out that these facts in not so few cases are wrong, as Kurt Kulac has already been demonstrated. Loosing our original idea for which this project is donated by thousands of donaters! From which you are paid for. As an unpaid, long term Wikipedian in Residence I do know what I´m talking about. With actions like this, we destroy our sources! All these facts are available right now openly. Why do we need these facts as a simple copy in Wikipedia? With no additional benefit? Except a dubious rise of so named articles. Wikipedia also has the charm of imperfection, which I certainly appreciate. The same imperfection, which is inherent to the people who will accomplish this tasks together with us. Unfortunately there are some people who think that everything imperfect must be destroyed. But we will never ever reach this perfection. Just as we can never be perfect by ourselves. In a world that is constantly changing. On your personal page on the foundation site, you cite Epictetus: I will reply with Epictetus too: No thing great is created suddenly, any more than a bunch of grapes or a fig. If you tell me that you desire a fig, I answer you that there must be time. Let it first blossom, then bear fruit, then ripen. h. Am 17.06.2013 22:27, schrieb Asaf Bartov: Hubertl, your e-mail was rude, even if you did not mean it to be. Please remember hundreds of people read every e-mail sent to this list, and civility is expected. Thanks, Asaf On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Per A.J. Andersson p...@telia.com wrote: Hi! Nice to know German language Wikipedia is full of sane people. Good for you. But maybe you don't need bots, so that's your decision. (You do not need infoboxes either, as I see it, and that's also your decision. Lsjbot makes infoboxes, among other things.) Yes, a larger database is more of a burden to support than a smaller one. Our experience at svwp is that automated help does not take away from the human part of the user community. Personally I think a larger database of comparable quality (built by any method) makes for a larger footprint = a greater chance of catching new editors. Wikipedia did that for me. My view on it is that larger communities can sustain and maintain a certain database easier than smaller communities. Wikipedia communities to a large extent depend on the language size surrounding it. We already have automation around us at several levels, and there are editing tools that make for faster editing – by humans. The use of these are seldom questioned. Best of wishes, /Per A.J. Andersson user Paracel63 at svwp (carbon-based lifeform from Sweden) 2013-06-17, 12:09, skrev Hubertl: Payin´ peanuts, gettin´ monkeys Servin´ facts, gettin´ idiots. An unmanageable, not maintainable mass of articles is the best way to breed idiots. Because facts do not create knowledge. If that is our goal, then automatically created Wikipedias ar the best way to solve one of our biggest problems, namely the permanent loss of authors. Maybe it is completely sufficient if you know that somewhere facts are stored in a most possible stupid form. I started more than fifty years ago learning about facts, facts without understanding. But nine years ago I startet to learn something about knowledge, understanding and correlations. Why do not you need people like me? If we have bots now? Do we want to make ourselves more important with impressive numbers? Hubertl! The german language Wikipedia has no single article that was generated by a bot. I'm proud of it. If this would take place in de:WP, many people will leave this project. With certainty. Anyway, that does not matter, a bot is probably much better for monkeys! __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Swedish Wikipedia reach 1 million (with support of bots)
Hi Anders, you wrote: And as shown earlier we have learned that this actually helps recruting and keeping editors Do you have any prove for that or is this just a speculation or your personal wishes? Does this mean that the Swedish community precisely because this botwork has - against the general trend - no loss of authors? I know very well what it means to attract new authors and to retain them. But I also know that it is not because of automated welcome bots, but mostly with personal contact. By this logic, any other Wikipedias, which even have a higher proportion of automated generated articles will get even more new authors. If this is all true, I would change my mind immediately! hu Am 17.06.2013 12:43, schrieb Anders Wennersten: In the beginning there were a mass of article created manually that was substandard and which today would not be accepted as proper articles A little later (several year ago now) a mass of articles were botgenerated that were substandard and could not be seen as proper wp:articles We have since long learned how to write good articles created by our editors. We are just now, on a few wikiepdiaverisons, learning how to create good articles by bots, that give both facts, content, context and knowledge (also using the new new valuable tool Wikidata which is a good component but not all that is needed) I am proud to be active in one of these versions mastering this new intellectual challenge, of huge value in providing free knowledge for all. And as shown earlier we have learned that this actually helps recruting and keeping editors Anders Hubertl skrev 2013-06-17 12:09: Payin´ peanuts, gettin´ monkeys Servin´ facts, gettin´ idiots. An unmanageable, not maintainable mass of articles is the best way to breed idiots. Because facts do not create knowledge. If that is our goal, then automatically created Wikipedias ar the best way to solve one of our biggest problems, namely the permanent loss of authors. Maybe it is completely sufficient if you know that somewhere facts are stored in a most possible stupid form. I started more than fifty years ago learning about facts, facts without understanding. But nine years ago I startet to learn something about knowledge, understanding and correlations. Why do not you need people like me? If we have bots now? Do we want to make ourselves more important with impressive numbers? Hubertl! The german language Wikipedia has no single article that was generated by a bot. I'm proud of it. If this would take place in de:WP, many people will leave this project. With certainty. Anyway, that does not matter, a bot is probably much better for monkeys! Am 16.06.2013 14:51, schrieb Nurunnaby Chowdhury: Congratulations swedish wikipedians *Nurunnaby Chowdhury Hasive* Bangladesh Ambassador | Open Knowledge Network Foundation (OKFN)http://www.okfn.org Auto-confirmed, Reviewer Roll backer Editor | Bangla Wikipediahttp://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:nhasive Treasurer Coordinator (PR) | Bangladesh Open Source Network (BdOSN)http://www.bdosn.org Coordinator (PR) | Society for the Popularization of Science, Bangladesh (SPSB) http://www.spsb.org* *Central Team MOVers | Bangladesh Mathematical Olympiad Committee (BdMO)http://www.matholympiad.org.bd Facebook: fb.com/nhasive | Twitter: @nhasivehttp://www.twitter.com/nhasive| Skype: nhasive | www.nhasive.com On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: grattis mina kompisar! *Jag känner en bott, hon heter Lsjbot, Lsjbot heter hon...* It looks like Polish will be the next to hit the symbolic number: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias#100_000.2B_articles wittylama.com Peace, love metadata On 16 June 2013 22:39, Tonmoy Khan tonmoy...@gmail.com wrote: Congratulations!!! Tonmoy On Jun 16, 2013 6:30 PM, Patricio Lorente patricio.lore...@gmail.com wrote: Congratulations to the swedish wikipedians! 2013/6/16 Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se: Yesterday sv:wp reached 1 M articles. The one who did the passing was a bot generated article of a butterfly http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erysichton_elaborata. The bot behind this article is Lsjbot who creates articles from the database Catalogue of Life http://www.catalogueoflife.org/services/res/2011AC_26July.zip which (complemented by other databases) which holds data of around 1.5 million species. The bot genrates about 5000 new articles per day and has generated just under 400 000 of the sv:wps million and continues... The guy who runs he bot is a member of the Swedish chapters board http://se.wikimedia.org/wiki/Kandidater_2013/Sverker_Johansson and is in his civil life a University teacher. In this capacity he is also a guest lecturer at the university of the Phillipines where he stayed the last couple of months (and the bot was on hold). He is there active in Cebuano-Wikipedia http://ceb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unang_Panid and supporting their local
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Swedish Wikipedia reach 1 million (with support of bots)
Am 16.06.2013 15:24, schrieb Johan Jönsson: I would say our experience is that it doesn't affect the number of human editors at all in any way. Hi Johan, Anders Wennersten says: And as shown earlier we have learned that this actually helps recruting and keeping editors ??? It is difficult to draw conclusions about user behavior. The more difficult it is to say something about the behavior of persons, which are not yet detectable part of the community. Because it's probably the most difficulty to make predictions about facts that take place in the future. h A couple of people run bots that create very short articles about taxons or other stuff that, to be honest, probably wouldn't have been created otherwise. These articles have very few readers. Why on Earth would this discourage us? Our main problem is that browsing Swedish Wikipedia using the random article button isn't as fun as it used to be. That's probably fixable. //Johan Jönsson -- ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
