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,
@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 no
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 ??
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 worki
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 "par
On 4 February 2014 20:03, Thyge 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
Wi
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 :
> On 4 February 2014 17:48, Risker wrote:
>> On 4 February 2014 12:27, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
>>
>>> Risker, 04/02/2014 17:59:
>>>
>>> doesn't deserve
On 4 February 2014 17:48, Risker wrote:
> On 4 February 2014 12:27, Federico Leva (Nemo) 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 emai
On 4 February 2014 12:27, Federico Leva (Nemo) 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
On 4 February 2014 16:45, David Gerard wrote:
> On 4 February 2014 16:42, Harold Hidalgo 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 adminis
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
On 4 February 2014 11:45, David Gerard wrote:
> On 4 February 2014 16:42, Harold Hidalgo 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
On 4 February 2014 16:42, Harold Hidalgo 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 person
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.
___
On 4 February 2014 11:21, Fæ wrote:
> On 4 February 2014 15:54, Risker 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
On 4 February 2014 15:54, Risker 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 t
On 4 February 2014 10:30, Fæ wrote:
> On 4 February 2014 14:03, Risker 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
On 4 February 2014 14:03, Risker 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
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 equa
On 4 February 2014 08:55, Federico Leva (Nemo) 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 sa
On 4 February 2014 12:40, Risker 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 Con
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 nee
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
23 matches
Mail list logo
