Re: [Wikimedia-l] Swedish Wikipedia reach 1 million (with support of bots)

2013-06-17 Thread Hubertl
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)

2013-06-17 Thread Hubertl

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 community

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Swedish Wikipedia reach 1 million (with support of bots)

2013-06-17 Thread Hubertl



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