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

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

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

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

[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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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:

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 ___