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

2013-06-18 Thread Peter Southwood

That would be very interesting and useful information
Cheers,
Peter (User:Pbsouthwood)

- Original Message - 
From: David Cuenca dacu...@gmail.com

To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Swedish Wikipedia reach 1 million (with supportof 
bots)



On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:00 AM, Anders Wennersten 
m...@anderswennersten.se

wrote:



The base fact figures for sv:wp is
Increase of views +23% on yearly basis, WM:DE +3, WMF:Fr +8 (all mature
wikipediauser communities), nl with +14 and wm:it with +16 also very good
figures (Spain Russia, and Portugal still in a built up phase have higher
numbers) http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/**TablesPageViewsMonthlyCombined**
.htm http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthlyCombined.htm

Editor 1 and 5 somewhat up or stable, new editor up in Jan, Feb, March,
but down in April (eastertime)
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaSV.htm



Instead of just discussing this topic as always has been done, it would be
great to take advantage of the opportunity to monitor changes in the sv-wp
community as a result of this massive automated article creation.

For me it would be interesting to know:
1) current perception in the community about automated articles correlated
with the number of contributions by the person answering.
2) impact of the newly created articles: views, human edits done to those
articles (specially nr of bytes added), correlation with nr of previous
edits
3) changes in the community after 1 year, survey of new members, of those,
how many registered after seeing a bot article vs how many after seeing a
human-created article?
4) some metrics about the article quality (maybe with AFT)

Otherwise the same arguments are going to be repeated over and over again,
year after year, without ever reaching a conclusion, or without ever
learning which impact those articles might have.

Cheers,
Micru
___
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)

2013-06-17 Thread Peter Southwood
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 supportof bots)

2013-06-17 Thread Ilario Valdelli
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_**
 000.2B_articleshttp://meta

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

2013-06-17 Thread 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


 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