On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:46 AM, Strainu wrote:
> Hi Steven,
>
> What qualifies as "many"? On ro.wp, Andrebot is creating sections of
> articles about the population of villages/communes in Bulgaria,
> Hungary and Croatia, also creating articles where they do not exist.
> That will probably amoun
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 6:50 AM, 梁忠明 wrote:
> In Chinese Wikipedia, there're no such bots to create lots of biological
> articles - Ranyv, one of my colleagues there, said that Chinese is not a
> language adopting the Roman alphabet, thus it is difficult to generate
> translation names for those
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 4:56 AM, Gryllida wrote:
> Hopefully your research does not conclude this is a good idea; I had been
> contacted to create such bots multiple times in the past. I had declined
> such queries, as the need in automating this means inefficiency in manual
> content creation. S
On 11/27/13 2:01 PM, Fæ wrote:
As well as finding out where this has happened, it would be good to
have some cases of where "bots went bad" explained. My main concern
would be leaving a bot to create thousands of articles but in the
process creating a headache for limited numbers of maintainers,
On Tue, 26 Nov 2013, at 8:50, Steven Walling wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> My team is doing some background research in to Wikipedia article creation
> right now.[1] One question I'd like answer is which Wikipedias are
> currently (i.e. this year) running bots to create many articles.
Hopefully your resea
Fæ skrev 2013-11-27 15:24
Small error rates are a real challenge. My experience on Commons for
large bot work has been long discussions around quality complaints
where the level of error was *well below 1%*.
Very interesting you also mention this level of problematic articles. We
has found thi
On 27 November 2013 13:43, Anders Wennersten wrote:
...
> And even if this only is relevant for far less then 1% of all generated
> articles it becomes around hundred in total. Many of these cases are quite
> complicated to fix (area of lakes, depths) and there is a debate who should
> fix these,
On sv:wp our main headaches has not been technical problems in bots but
inconsistencies (errors) in sources.
For our lakes the hydrological authorities has in some cases called a
group of nearby and/or conneced lakes with a plural name, like
"Pikelakes", while the mapauthorities call them diff
As well as finding out where this has happened, it would be good to
have some cases of where "bots went bad" explained. My main concern
would be leaving a bot to create thousands of articles but in the
process creating a headache for limited numbers of maintainers, such
as article copy-editors, cat
Hi all,
In Chinese Wikipedia, there're no such bots to create lots of biological
articles - Ranyv, one of my colleagues there, said that Chinese is not a
language adopting the Roman alphabet, thus it is difficult to generate
translation names for those species - unlike Vietnamese and others, they
2013/11/25 Steven Walling :
> Hi all,
>
> My team is doing some background research in to Wikipedia article creation
> right now.[1] One question I'd like answer is which Wikipedias are
> currently (i.e. this year) running bots to create many articles.
Hi Steven,
What qualifies as "many"? On ro.w
On Irish language Wikipedia, we have had a bot which is creating articles
based on the text of "Fréamh an Eolais", a freely licenced scientific
encyclopaedia.
https://ga.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speisialta:Contributions/HusseyBot
ga.wp is not quite large enough to be included in the automated reporting
Matthew Flaschen, 26/11/2013 00:21:
On 11/25/2013 05:00 PM, Erik Zachte wrote:
For all time totals per bot there is
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/BotActivityMatrixCreates.htm
For the purposes of that chart, how are you defining bots?
For the purposes of all charts, please follow links. ;)
ht
The Tagalog Wikipedia did not use bots, but we had editors doing it manually.
Users like Wikiboost, Booster Gold, etc. added hundreds, if not thousands, of
articles in this manner, and that is not reflected in the statistics.
Luckily though, this has largely stopped due to community opposition.
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 4:50 AM, Steven Walling wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> My team is doing some background research in to Wikipedia article creation
> right now.[1] One question I'd like answer is which Wikipedias are
> currently (i.e. this year) running bots to create many articles.
>
> I know that Ls
On 11/25/2013 05:00 PM, Erik Zachte wrote:
For all time totals per bot there is
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/BotActivityMatrixCreates.htm
For the purposes of that chart, how are you defining bots?
Thanks,
Matt Flaschen
___
Wikimedia-l mailing lis
...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Steven Walling
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 22:50
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Which Wikipedias have had large scale bot creation of
articles this year?
Hi all,
My team is doing some background research in to Wikipedia article creation
right
Hi all,
My team is doing some background research in to Wikipedia article creation
right now.[1] One question I'd like answer is which Wikipedias are
currently (i.e. this year) running bots to create many articles.
I know that Lsjbot has run (or is running) on Swedish (sv), Cebuano (ceb),
and War
18 matches
Mail list logo
