Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?

2014-02-06 Thread Samuel Klein
@Anders: I seem to have unintentionally derailed your excellent
thread.   My apologies; I've taken responses to that subthread
offline.  To return to your main point: we do need  'A strategy for
semi-automated article generation; and inclusion of Wikidata'.

Anders Wennersten writes:
 [we] will not be able to achieve our goal without... technical expertise
 (like knowledge in Lua, how to write datainterface to external dataproviders)

And it is important to attract and expand this sort of expertise.  Not
only through local chapter support but through collaboration across
different project-communities, as you say.

@Gerard: I second your vision for Wikidata.  It is a natural place to
cultivate tools for large-scale creation and enhancement of
information.  And for now it seems open to experimentation, being
bold, trying and reverting things.

 Wikidata is a wiki. You indicate that the official sources
 need work. Wikidata is a good place to work on this.

+1 !

Sam.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?

2014-02-06 Thread Anders Wennersten

Thanks Sam, your answer warms my soul!

And you summarize my key points excellent, (and clearer than I managed 
myself)


@Gerard: Our visions are very close and I support yours in general. On a 
more concrete level it seems we have some different views, it could be 
misundertandings from my side, it could be that we think of different 
article subject segments or even that we have different perspective on 
what can be feasible at different point in time.  My strong belief (and 
life experience) is that is in the meeting of different perspectives, 
like ours in this case, that really bright concepts and solutions turns 
up! And unfortunately a mail list is not really working for an exchange 
of ideas and concepts, so I wonder over possibilities to have some time 
a IRL gathering to really discuss through these issues and reach new 
enlightenments. I am open to anywhere anyplace, Wikimania could be one 
opportunity if it does not put this a bit far away. Or could we create a 
special subtrack at Wikimania for this??


Anders

 




Samuel Klein skrev 2014-02-06 21:29:

@Anders: I seem to have unintentionally derailed your excellent
thread.   My apologies; I've taken responses to that subthread
offline.  To return to your main point: we do need  'A strategy for
semi-automated article generation; and inclusion of Wikidata'.

Anders Wennersten writes:
 [we] will not be able to achieve our goal without... technical expertise
 (like knowledge in Lua, how to write datainterface to external dataproviders)

And it is important to attract and expand this sort of expertise.  Not
only through local chapter support but through collaboration across
different project-communities, as you say.

@Gerard: I second your vision for Wikidata.  It is a natural place to
cultivate tools for large-scale creation and enhancement of
information.  And for now it seems open to experimentation, being
bold, trying and reverting things.


Wikidata is a wiki. You indicate that the official sources
need work. Wikidata is a good place to work on this.

+1 !

Sam.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?

2014-02-05 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,

At Wikidata the number of items and the associated data is growing
steadily. We are dealing with the aftermath of some bots and to be honest,
that is also very much the name of the game.

An example: many species have been added in the ceb nl sv Wikipedia and it
would be wonderful if the parent taxon would be included [1] for all of
them. This is now happening in a one at a time fashion.

What is also happening is new information that is added in Wikidata from
external sources. I blogged about this [2] and in my opinion this is
fabulous. What is so great is that any Wikipedia that includes Wikidata
search to its extended search already benefits. Every community can choose
to add stub articles based on the information in Wikidata.

In my opinion data that has some relevance can be included in Wikidata
particularly when it is rich in statements and references to external
sources. With great information in Wikidata, it becomes possible to use it
to build even more extensive stub articles. Such things are starting to
happen.

Bot created information is controversial in many Wikipedias. It is not in
Wikidata. Very welcome is all the data that enriches the items we already
know. Very welcome is the data on the things we do not yet know but
appreciate as relevant.
Thanks,
 GerardM


[1]
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/01/taxonomy-where-there-is-nothing.html
[2] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/02/wikidata-ntf4-human-gene.html


On 4 February 2014 09:31, Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.sewrote:

 Nemo has found this wiki which I find very interesting [1]. it contains
 1,68 million articles and seems to be a copy of articles from Lithunian
 Wikipedia + some 1,5 million botgenerated articles, with focus on species
 (i know from Lsjbot that there are at least some 1,3 M articles of species
 to be found from reliable databases)

 The effort seems to be done by just a few lithuanians wikipedians with the
 right technical skill and insight on wikipedia, they are probably active
 also on ltwp[2].

 For me it is a reminder what will happen if we continue to be sceptical of
 botgerneration of articles with correct info with verfied sources. Creative
 people will do it anyway and then outside Wikpedia, which could make
  Wikipedia redundant in the same way Wikipedia has made the old paperbased
 encyclopedias redundant. The online encyclopedia with most knowledge to the
 readers will survive, and botgenerated verified articles contains more
 knowledge then no article on the subject. Also note that the most active
 now are languages like Vietnamese and Lithunian, with small communities all
 aware it will take eons of time if to expected these will be created
 manually

 I do would like the movement and upcoming strategy to make a proactive
 stand re semiautomted articles

 On sv:wp we have had this focus, since last august with including upload
 on wikidata as part of the articlegeneration. We have found the inclusion
 of Wikidata much more complex then we anticipated. We thought half a year
 would be enough to get a set of items with proper 100% quality data into
 Wikidata, but we now think it will take something like two years for just
 a small set of 1 articles :( This have not changed our belief in this
 approach, but we would certainly appreciate it there were other entities
 doing the same and with whom we could exchange experience (or a central
 initiative)

 Anders

 [1]
 Start page http://lietuvai.lt/wiki/Pagrindinis_puslapis
 Latest  changes http://lietuvai.lt/wiki/Specialus:Naujausi_puslapiai
 For random article press Atsitiktinis puslapis http://lietuvai.lt/wiki/
 Specialus:Atsitiktinis_puslapis/Straipsnis
 [2]
 ltwp https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagrindinis_puslapis
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?

2014-02-05 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Anders, I am afraid that the way you describe is one where perfection is
the enemy of the good.

Wikidata is full of imperfections. It is incomplete and often so wrong...
how about prime ministers of the United Kingdom who have been dead for
centuries featuring as an actor in several movies ???

When the data that are to be used in stubs or articles are uploaded to
Wikidata you can as happily improve them in Wikidata as anywhere else. What
is possible is to have tools on Wikidata like Reasonator that will help you
get to grips with the consistency.

When you state that it takes months to get the properties in Wikidata that
are needed to do your project, I find it a big problem at Wikidata and
definitely something that needs attention. When you know what the set of
properties it is you need, you can propose them as a lot and make it
obvious that they have to be considered together. As you know the quantity
type of properties have been released. So this is a good time to make your
proposals.

Most of all, Wikidata is a wiki. You indicate that the official sources
need work. Wikidata is a good place to work on this. When it is a years
work for you to beaver away, it may find more people to work with you on
solutions at Wikidata.
Thanks,
  GerardM


On 5 February 2014 13:21, Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.sewrote:

 Thanks for your input!

 I agree that with Wikidata we can generate article content semiautomatic
 without the controversy we have seen as for now.

 But our learning is it takes much more time then expected to get Wikidata
 operational on the data we want to get into it

 For our data we are working with just now, Swedish entities like
 administrative units, towns, parishes, lakes etc we have found:
 1.Before we load Wikidata we must have the identities correct on svwp,
 both name and official entitynumber and coordinates. We thought this
 would be simple but we find that it takes much longer then anticipated as
 we want this data to be 99,8% correct not 98% as we are used to have (if we
 do not load widata with top Q it can not be recommended as a general source
 of info for all versions).  And we find loads of problems and errors and
 ambiguous data in the sources we use from our authorities (besides typing
 errors in wp). No one has ever scrutinized this official data as we
 Wikipedians are doing now. And just for the basic 1 entities,  it will
 take our group of five-six up to a year to get this right
 2.before we then load data in Wikidata we must have identified the correct
 properties and in many cases get new ones in place. It is just a few week
 since it was possible to enter populations, and an important property like
 geoshape is far away yet. And for the new property unique for our project
 we have to work through the wikidata defintionprocess, that can easily take
 6-9 month for a single property, All of this must of course be ready before
 we start the actual loading.
 3.The actual load in wikidata is then quite straight forward (by bot). But
 to make use of data in Wikidata we need to have new templates in place in
 our language version. And here we find we need for many dataitems to have
 modules written in Lua in order for the data to be handled in the template
 in order to present data correct in the articles
 4.After loading wikidata we need to work through our articles for them to
 base their data on wikidata. Some of this is done without problems with
 using templates and going through the articles with bots. But we expect
 also there will be a need in several articles to make manual adjustment to
 get all correct (like factdata residing in the text portion that should now
 be taken from Wikdata)

 But if we come this far, our articles will be perfect and we can produce a
 set of software, like templetes and modules that make implementation of
 these data in other language versions very easy

 Another learning is that we actually will not be able to achieve our goal
 without the support of technical expertise (like knowledge in Lua, how to
 write datainterface to external dataproviders) . Right now we are
 discussing with our local chapter, if they can provide technical expertise
 when ours is not enough , we are after all wikipedians not tech wizards

 And we are missing to have colleagues on other language versions to
 discuss with, it is very complex.

 Anders



 Gerard Meijssen skrev 2014-02-05 12:16:

  Hoi,

 At Wikidata the number of items and the associated data is growing
 steadily. We are dealing with the aftermath of some bots and to be honest,
 that is also very much the name of the game.

 An example: many species have been added in the ceb nl sv Wikipedia and it
 would be wonderful if the parent taxon would be included [1] for all of
 them. This is now happening in a one at a time fashion.

 What is also happening is new information that is added in Wikidata from
 external sources. I blogged about this [2] and in my opinion this is
 

[Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?

2014-02-04 Thread Anders Wennersten
Nemo has found this wiki which I find very interesting [1]. it contains 
1,68 million articles and seems to be a copy of articles from Lithunian 
Wikipedia + some 1,5 million botgenerated articles, with focus on 
species (i know from Lsjbot that there are at least some 1,3 M articles 
of species to be found from reliable databases)


The effort seems to be done by just a few lithuanians wikipedians with 
the right technical skill and insight on wikipedia, they are probably 
active also on ltwp[2].


For me it is a reminder what will happen if we continue to be sceptical 
of botgerneration of articles with correct info with verfied sources. 
Creative people will do it anyway and then outside Wikpedia, which could 
make  Wikipedia redundant in the same way Wikipedia has made the old 
paperbased encyclopedias redundant. The online encyclopedia with most 
knowledge to the readers will survive, and botgenerated verified 
articles contains more knowledge then no article on the subject. Also 
note that the most active now are languages like Vietnamese and 
Lithunian, with small communities all aware it will take eons of time if 
to expected these will be created manually


I do would like the movement and upcoming strategy to make a proactive 
stand re semiautomted articles


On sv:wp we have had this focus, since last august with including upload 
on wikidata as part of the articlegeneration. We have found the 
inclusion of Wikidata much more complex then we anticipated. We thought 
half a year would be enough to get a set of items with proper 100% 
quality data into Wikidata, but we now think it will take something 
like two years for just a small set of 1 articles :( This have not 
changed our belief in this approach, but we would certainly appreciate 
it there were other entities doing the same and with whom we could 
exchange experience (or a central initiative)


Anders

[1]
Start page http://lietuvai.lt/wiki/Pagrindinis_puslapis
Latest  changes http://lietuvai.lt/wiki/Specialus:Naujausi_puslapiai
For random article press Atsitiktinis puslapis 
http://lietuvai.lt/wiki/Specialus:Atsitiktinis_puslapis/Straipsnis

[2]
ltwp https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagrindinis_puslapis
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?

2014-02-04 Thread Samuel Klein
Bot generated articles have been important throughout the history of the
wiki Projects.  They are essential to our future.  They have also always
been  controversial with some editors.

Agreed that not showing them or remaining skeptical rather than learning to
use them better will be a proviso and may lead to forks.  I am sad when I
see  veryactive bot and script users blocked on larger wikis (Rich
Farmborough comes to mind from enwp) and perhaps we can find ways to
recognize the best bots just as we do articles.
On Feb 4, 2014 3:31 AM, Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se
wrote:

 Nemo has found this wiki which I find very interesting [1]. it contains
 1,68 million articles and seems to be a copy of articles from Lithunian
 Wikipedia + some 1,5 million botgenerated articles, with focus on species
 (i know from Lsjbot that there are at least some 1,3 M articles of species
 to be found from reliable databases)

 The effort seems to be done by just a few lithuanians wikipedians with the
 right technical skill and insight on wikipedia, they are probably active
 also on ltwp[2].

 For me it is a reminder what will happen if we continue to be sceptical of
 botgerneration of articles with correct info with verfied sources. Creative
 people will do it anyway and then outside Wikpedia, which could make
  Wikipedia redundant in the same way Wikipedia has made the old paperbased
 encyclopedias redundant. The online encyclopedia with most knowledge to the
 readers will survive, and botgenerated verified articles contains more
 knowledge then no article on the subject. Also note that the most active
 now are languages like Vietnamese and Lithunian, with small communities all
 aware it will take eons of time if to expected these will be created
 manually

 I do would like the movement and upcoming strategy to make a proactive
 stand re semiautomted articles

 On sv:wp we have had this focus, since last august with including upload
 on wikidata as part of the articlegeneration. We have found the inclusion
 of Wikidata much more complex then we anticipated. We thought half a year
 would be enough to get a set of items with proper 100% quality data into
 Wikidata, but we now think it will take something like two years for just
 a small set of 1 articles :( This have not changed our belief in this
 approach, but we would certainly appreciate it there were other entities
 doing the same and with whom we could exchange experience (or a central
 initiative)

 Anders

 [1]
 Start page http://lietuvai.lt/wiki/Pagrindinis_puslapis
 Latest  changes http://lietuvai.lt/wiki/Specialus:Naujausi_puslapiai
 For random article press Atsitiktinis puslapis http://lietuvai.lt/wiki/
 Specialus:Atsitiktinis_puslapis/Straipsnis
 [2]
 ltwp https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagrindinis_puslapis
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?

2014-02-04 Thread Risker
Sam, I am quite concerned that you would use a public mailing list to
express your displeasure about a specific individual's block on a
particular project, without ensuring that you had your facts straight.  It
is unfair not only to the project involved, but to the person who is
blocked: nobody needs to have a board trustee shining a bright light on
their removal from the project. In fact, your using a specific editor as
your poster boy for bot editing without knowing why his restrictions are in
place is rather inconsiderate to the editor, the project, and the other
people who think you're giving wise counsel.

Before you do that in the future, perhaps it would be a good idea to
understand why a project had to, after years of trying to work with a
valued editor and to mitigate the problems caused, finally remove him from
the project.

Risker


On 4 February 2014 07:05, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:

 Bot generated articles have been important throughout the history of the
 wiki Projects.  They are essential to our future.  They have also always
 been  controversial with some editors.

 Agreed that not showing them or remaining skeptical rather than learning to
 use them better will be a proviso and may lead to forks.  I am sad when I
 see  veryactive bot and script users blocked on larger wikis (Rich
 Farmborough comes to mind from enwp) and perhaps we can find ways to
 recognize the best bots just as we do articles.
 On Feb 4, 2014 3:31 AM, Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se
 wrote:

  Nemo has found this wiki which I find very interesting [1]. it contains
  1,68 million articles and seems to be a copy of articles from Lithunian
  Wikipedia + some 1,5 million botgenerated articles, with focus on species
  (i know from Lsjbot that there are at least some 1,3 M articles of
 species
  to be found from reliable databases)
 
  The effort seems to be done by just a few lithuanians wikipedians with
 the
  right technical skill and insight on wikipedia, they are probably active
  also on ltwp[2].
 
  For me it is a reminder what will happen if we continue to be sceptical
 of
  botgerneration of articles with correct info with verfied sources.
 Creative
  people will do it anyway and then outside Wikpedia, which could make
   Wikipedia redundant in the same way Wikipedia has made the old
 paperbased
  encyclopedias redundant. The online encyclopedia with most knowledge to
 the
  readers will survive, and botgenerated verified articles contains more
  knowledge then no article on the subject. Also note that the most active
  now are languages like Vietnamese and Lithunian, with small communities
 all
  aware it will take eons of time if to expected these will be created
  manually
 
  I do would like the movement and upcoming strategy to make a proactive
  stand re semiautomted articles
 
  On sv:wp we have had this focus, since last august with including upload
  on wikidata as part of the articlegeneration. We have found the inclusion
  of Wikidata much more complex then we anticipated. We thought half a year
  would be enough to get a set of items with proper 100% quality data into
  Wikidata, but we now think it will take something like two years for
 just
  a small set of 1 articles :( This have not changed our belief in this
  approach, but we would certainly appreciate it there were other entities
  doing the same and with whom we could exchange experience (or a central
  initiative)
 
  Anders
 
  [1]
  Start page http://lietuvai.lt/wiki/Pagrindinis_puslapis
  Latest  changes http://lietuvai.lt/wiki/Specialus:Naujausi_puslapiai
  For random article press Atsitiktinis puslapis http://lietuvai.lt/wiki/
  Specialus:Atsitiktinis_puslapis/Straipsnis
  [2]
  ltwp https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagrindinis_puslapis
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?

2014-02-04 Thread David Gerard
On 4 February 2014 12:40, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:

 Before you do that in the future, perhaps it would be a good idea to
 understand why a project had to, after years of trying to work with a
 valued editor and to mitigate the problems caused, finally remove him from
 the project.



Because hitting Control-V was deemed to constitute automation, wasn't it?


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?

2014-02-04 Thread Risker
On 4 February 2014 08:55, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:

 Risker, 04/02/2014 13:40:

 Sam, I am quite concerned that you would use a public mailing list to
 express your displeasure about a specific individual's block [...]


 You're putting words in his mouth. Saying, for instance, how sad it is
 that about 1 % of the USA population is in jail doesn't equal saying that
 all people in jail should be immediately liberated; similarly, I'm always
 sad when I block a user, because it's a failure, but that doesn't mean I
 won't do what's needed.

 Nemo, he named a specific user.  I don't think I'm putting words in his
mouth.

The vast majority of users who do a lot of bot edits are still merrily
working away on English Wikipedia.

Risker
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?

2014-02-04 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)

Risker, 04/02/2014 13:40:

Sam, I am quite concerned that you would use a public mailing list to
express your displeasure about a specific individual's block [...]


You're putting words in his mouth. Saying, for instance, how sad it is 
that about 1 % of the USA population is in jail doesn't equal saying 
that all people in jail should be immediately liberated; similarly, I'm 
always sad when I block a user, because it's a failure, but that doesn't 
mean I won't do what's needed.


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?

2014-02-04 Thread
On 4 February 2014 14:03, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
..
 The vast majority of users who do a lot of bot edits are still merrily
 working away on English Wikipedia.

As someone who has made around 3 million automated edits on Commons
and uploaded over 200,000 valuable educational images there, I would
love to do similar work to benefit the English Wikipedia. I do not
feel in the least bit encouraged to even try to set up a content
creation or even an uncontroversial en.wp house-keeping project in
2014 considering how much of my volunteer time would be lost it debate
any proposal there is likely to create, compared to the simplicity of
other Wikimedia projects.

Knowing what happens to anyone who becomes of interest and has a
large number of edits, along with the associated endless repeated
attempts to find any single problematic edit out of hundreds of
thousands of perfectly good content creation, I find the word
merrily a poor choice. The extraordinary case that Sam mentioned has
been a widely discussed lesson to all bot-writers, many of us
carefully do our work in a way that avoids ever attempting to put our
heads above the parapet and risk becoming targets of depressing
damaging witch-hunts, reputation ruining bad faith allegations and
extreme effectively *years*-long sanctions from those with big
hammers. So rather than merrily one might better chose from
cautiously, covertly or even fearfully and not.

Risker, out of interest, considering my long track record of useful
bot-work on Commons, would you support my proposal to let Faebot do
some sensible non-controversial work on en.wp or do you think I am a
danger to Wikimedia?

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?

2014-02-04 Thread Risker
On 4 February 2014 10:30, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 4 February 2014 14:03, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
 ..
  The vast majority of users who do a lot of bot edits are still merrily
  working away on English Wikipedia.

 As someone who has made around 3 million automated edits on Commons
 and uploaded over 200,000 valuable educational images there, I would
 love to do similar work to benefit the English Wikipedia. I do not
 feel in the least bit encouraged to even try to set up a content
 creation or even an uncontroversial en.wp house-keeping project in
 2014 considering how much of my volunteer time would be lost it debate
 any proposal there is likely to create, compared to the simplicity of
 other Wikimedia projects.

 Knowing what happens to anyone who becomes of interest and has a
 large number of edits, along with the associated endless repeated
 attempts to find any single problematic edit out of hundreds of
 thousands of perfectly good content creation, I find the word
 merrily a poor choice. The extraordinary case that Sam mentioned has
 been a widely discussed lesson to all bot-writers, many of us
 carefully do our work in a way that avoids ever attempting to put our
 heads above the parapet and risk becoming targets of depressing
 damaging witch-hunts, reputation ruining bad faith allegations and
 extreme effectively *years*-long sanctions from those with big
 hammers. So rather than merrily one might better chose from
 cautiously, covertly or even fearfully and not.

 Risker, out of interest, considering my long track record of useful
 bot-work on Commons, would you support my proposal to let Faebot do
 some sensible non-controversial work on en.wp or do you think I am a
 danger to Wikimedia?

 I'd defer to the opinion of the Bot Approval Group, Fae.  Bots have done
(and continue to do) extremely useful work on English Wikipedia. They've
also been involved with some difficult-to-fix harm (usually unintentional,
by poor programming or without understanding of underlying content issues),
and unfortunately there has been a pattern of a handful of bot owners not
cleaning up those sorts of problems.  This has resulted in the bar being
raised for everyone.

The issue of bot article creation is one that will vary widely from project
to project depending on the culture and philosophy of the community. If we
think a bit, we're all likely to come up with a project or two that
expanded rapidly with the use of bots, only to find that the content added
had to be removed because it didn't meet copyright requirements or was of
very poor quality.  On the other hand, we've also seen brilliant successes.
And yes, there was some fairly significant early expansion of English
Wikipedia through bot article creation.  Some of those articles have barely
been touched since - except by other bots.

Risker
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?

2014-02-04 Thread
On 4 February 2014 15:54, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
 Risker, out of interest, considering my long track record of useful
 bot-work on Commons, would you support my proposal to let Faebot do
 some sensible non-controversial work on en.wp or do you think I am a
 danger to Wikimedia?

 I'd defer to the opinion of the Bot Approval Group, Fae.  Bots have done
 (and continue to do) extremely useful work on English Wikipedia. They've
 also been involved with some difficult-to-fix harm (usually unintentional,
 by poor programming or without understanding of underlying content issues),
 and unfortunately there has been a pattern of a handful of bot owners not
 cleaning up those sorts of problems.  This has resulted in the bar being
 raised for everyone.

 The issue of bot article creation is one that will vary widely from project
 to project depending on the culture and philosophy of the community. If we
 think a bit, we're all likely to come up with a project or two that
 expanded rapidly with the use of bots, only to find that the content added
 had to be removed because it didn't meet copyright requirements or was of
 very poor quality.  On the other hand, we've also seen brilliant successes.
 And yes, there was some fairly significant early expansion of English
 Wikipedia through bot article creation.  Some of those articles have barely
 been touched since - except by other bots.

 Risker

I take that as a no.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?

2014-02-04 Thread Risker
On 4 February 2014 11:21, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 4 February 2014 15:54, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
  Risker, out of interest, considering my long track record of useful
  bot-work on Commons, would you support my proposal to let Faebot do
  some sensible non-controversial work on en.wp or do you think I am a
  danger to Wikimedia?
 
  I'd defer to the opinion of the Bot Approval Group, Fae.  Bots have done
  (and continue to do) extremely useful work on English Wikipedia. They've
  also been involved with some difficult-to-fix harm (usually
 unintentional,
  by poor programming or without understanding of underlying content
 issues),
  and unfortunately there has been a pattern of a handful of bot owners not
  cleaning up those sorts of problems.  This has resulted in the bar being
  raised for everyone.
 
  The issue of bot article creation is one that will vary widely from
 project
  to project depending on the culture and philosophy of the community. If
 we
  think a bit, we're all likely to come up with a project or two that
  expanded rapidly with the use of bots, only to find that the content
 added
  had to be removed because it didn't meet copyright requirements or was of
  very poor quality.  On the other hand, we've also seen brilliant
 successes.
  And yes, there was some fairly significant early expansion of English
  Wikipedia through bot article creation.  Some of those articles have
 barely
  been touched since - except by other bots.
 
  Risker

 I take that as a no.




That's unfortunate, Fae. It's meant to say I don't have the knowledge to
analyse whether or not your bot works, so I would defer to those who do. I
don't think I'm qualified to figure out whether or not your bots, or anyone
else's bots, should be operating on Wikipedia.

I'd have the same answer to a developer who wanted me to review code, or an
engineer who wanted me to look at his designs for an internal combustion
engine.  It's just knowledge outside of my scope.

Risker
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?

2014-02-04 Thread Harold Hidalgo
Perhaps it would be a good idea to understand how bad ArbCom managed the
Rich Farmbrough case by putting him against a slow death that would
ultimately end in a year-long ban handled by a single administrator.

-- 
*Harold A. Hidalgo*
Editorial Hidalgo Ediciones.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?

2014-02-04 Thread David Gerard
On 4 February 2014 16:42, Harold Hidalgo hah...@gmail.com wrote:

 Perhaps it would be a good idea to understand how bad ArbCom managed the
 Rich Farmbrough case by putting him against a slow death that would
 ultimately end in a year-long ban handled by a single administrator.


Risker has not noted her personal involvement in such. She's not
defending the treatment of Rich Farmbrough as any sort of uninvolved
commentator.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?

2014-02-04 Thread Risker
On 4 February 2014 11:45, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 4 February 2014 16:42, Harold Hidalgo hah...@gmail.com wrote:

  Perhaps it would be a good idea to understand how bad ArbCom managed the
  Rich Farmbrough case by putting him against a slow death that would
  ultimately end in a year-long ban handled by a single administrator.


 Risker has not noted her personal involvement in such. She's not
 defending the treatment of Rich Farmbrough as any sort of uninvolved
 commentator.


I'm not defending the treatment of any individual editor, David.  I'm
saying that it is wrong, just plain wrong, to try to leverage a situation
involving any individual editor by name when making what is an otherwise
valid point, particularly when unfamiliar with the entire background.  Rich
doesn't deserve to have his case reheard on this mailing list, when there's
not a darn thing that's going to change as a result of it.  He is a decent
person and a dedicated Wikimedian, and people shouldn't be using his name
to make political points.

I do try to stand up to that principle; there've been numerous
opportunities for me over the years to point to the behaviour of specific
individuals and try to make hay out of them.  I may not always succeed, but
I really do try, especially on this global mailing list.

Risker
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?

2014-02-04 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)

Risker, 04/02/2014 17:59:

doesn't deserve to have his case reheard on this mailing list


Then it would have been useful if you had refrained from issuing a 
motion of order against a simple, incidental 7-words mention, making 
this (otherwise quiet) thread into a television legal drama with the 
continuous scenes of objection! and the judge telling the court to 
ignore the rampant attorney's harangue.


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?

2014-02-04 Thread
On 4 February 2014 16:45, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 4 February 2014 16:42, Harold Hidalgo hah...@gmail.com wrote:

 Perhaps it would be a good idea to understand how bad ArbCom managed the
 ... case by putting him against a slow death that would
 ultimately end in a year-long ban handled by a single administrator.


 Risker has not noted her personal involvement in such. She's not
 defending the treatment of ... as any sort of uninvolved
 commentator.

Equally odd is deciding spontaneously to opine on the topic of using
bots, with a track record of being a Wikimedia expert and authority in
the case mentioned, while also being someone who would rather defer
to the opinion of the Bot Approval Group when asked directly for
opinions on whether myself as a highly active and successful Commons
bot writer is a menace to Wikimedia - but as someone who also been
subject to years of depressing ridicule, after being subject to the
devastating effect of Risker's personal intervention.

It would be great if the English Wikipedia were becoming a more open
and welcoming environment, including positive encouragement for bot
writers. I just don't see it being led in that direction, instead over
the last few years I see it being looked at by other Wikimedia
projects as a lesson in how to avoid pointless bureaucracy and
hostility to new users or those with minority viewpoints.

Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?

2014-02-04 Thread Risker
On 4 February 2014 12:27, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:

 Risker, 04/02/2014 17:59:

 doesn't deserve to have his case reheard on this mailing list


 Then it would have been useful if you had refrained from issuing a motion
 of order against a simple, incidental 7-words mention, making this
 (otherwise quiet) thread into a television legal drama with the continuous
 scenes of objection! and the judge telling the court to ignore the
 rampant attorney's harangue.



I'm not sure I entirely understand your point here, Nemo, but nonetheless
since it seems to be the opinion of several people in this thread that I
was personally responsible for this whole mess, I'll simplly suggest that
people read the actual case[1] where the Arbitration Committee upheld not
one but two *community* restrictions on the user in question, and took
steps to ensure that the community's decision was enforced.

Of course, if the Arbitration Committee had overturned the community
restrictions, then it would be pilloried for blatantly ignoring a decision
that the community had every right to make without Arbcom's involvement.

So meanwhile, I look at my watchlist and note that about 15% of the edits
on it were made by bots - and as far as I can see, none of them are
problematic.  Some of the bots on English Wikipedia have been editing
longer than I have, and more are created all the time.  There are a lot of
really excellent bots around, and a lot of bots that might cause problems
are weeded out or improved when they get to the Bot Approvals Group.  Bots
aren't the problem.

Risker


[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Final_decision
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?

2014-02-04 Thread
On 4 February 2014 17:48, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 4 February 2014 12:27, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:

 Risker, 04/02/2014 17:59:

 doesn't deserve to have his case reheard on this mailing list

Risker, here's a great tip: If you *really* do not want the case
reheard, then why not just stop emailing and publicising the case,
repeating the name of the accused and providing links in an attempt to
prove some point or other. Try spending your volunteer time welcoming
a few new Wikipedia editors instead of banning contributors and making
life ghastly for those who are under your hammer.

I welcomed and helped many thousands of newer en.wp contributors
during the time I was an admin. Even after the machinations of a few
individuals shot my reputation to hell and got me banned from what was
my home project for many years, I still helped Wikipedians with tricky
problems behind the scenes; in fact my highly publicised case made me
someone that those upset and having difficulties with our arcane
processes could turn to in confidence, in a way that most trusted
users do not have the real life experience and grey hairs to offer.
Having authority is not all about dishing it out, or even having the
badges to prove you must be respected.

Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?

2014-02-04 Thread Thyge
 A great tip would be to avoid changing this thread into a personal
attack on Risker or anybody else.
Thank you.
Thyge/Sir48

2014-02-04 Fæ fae...@gmail.com:
 On 4 February 2014 17:48, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 4 February 2014 12:27, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:

 Risker, 04/02/2014 17:59:

 doesn't deserve to have his case reheard on this mailing list

 Risker, here's a great tip: If you *really* do not want the case
 reheard, then why not just stop emailing and publicising the case,
 repeating the name of the accused and providing links in an attempt to
 prove some point or other. Try spending your volunteer time welcoming
 a few new Wikipedia editors instead of banning contributors and making
 life ghastly for those who are under your hammer.

 I welcomed and helped many thousands of newer en.wp contributors
 during the time I was an admin. Even after the machinations of a few
 individuals shot my reputation to hell and got me banned from what was
 my home project for many years, I still helped Wikipedians with tricky
 problems behind the scenes; in fact my highly publicised case made me
 someone that those upset and having difficulties with our arcane
 processes could turn to in confidence, in a way that most trusted
 users do not have the real life experience and grey hairs to offer.
 Having authority is not all about dishing it out, or even having the
 badges to prove you must be respected.

 Fae

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Botopedia?

2014-02-04 Thread
On 4 February 2014 20:03, Thyge ltl.pri...@gmail.com wrote:
  A great tip would be to avoid changing this thread into a personal
 attack on Risker or anybody else.
 Thank you.
 Thyge/Sir48

Er, that was the point of my tip to Risker.

Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe