] On Behalf Of Lydia Pintscher
Sent: 12 July 2015 06:34 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cebuano and Waray-waray Wikipedias among Top 10
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Lydia Pintscher lydia.pintsc...@wikimedia.de
wrote:
Hey :)
There has been a lot of talk about Wikidata
: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Lydia Pintscher
Sent: 12 July 2015 06:34 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cebuano and Waray-waray Wikipedias among Top 10
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Lydia
2015-07-12 19:34 GMT+03:00 Lydia Pintscher lydia.pintsc...@wikimedia.de:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Lydia Pintscher
lydia.pintsc...@wikimedia.de wrote:
Hey :)
There has been a lot of talk about Wikidata in this thread. We are indeed
going to work on a solution. Lucie will be working on
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 10:49 PM, Strainu strain...@gmail.com wrote:
I see the data source quoted there. Is there somewhere I can see the
code that created that data?
I am not sure how it all works but
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Module:Statistical_data and
Thank you, this is excellent, and a good illustration of the tip of the
iceberg of what's possible once things are well-described on Wikidata.
A.
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Lydia Pintscher
lydia.pintsc...@wikimedia.de wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Lydia Pintscher
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Lydia Pintscher
lydia.pintsc...@wikimedia.de wrote:
Hey :)
There has been a lot of talk about Wikidata in this thread. We are indeed
going to work on a solution. Lucie will be working on this project as part
of her bachelor thesis starting in August. It is
Hi Anders,
While I would normally agree with your logic, take note that for both the
Cebuano and Waray Wikipedias, there were only 1-2 editors who said yes to the
endeavor. For Waray, that was JinJian. For Cebuano, that happened to also be
JinJian and one other editor who is currently not
Hey :)
There has been a lot of talk about Wikidata in this thread. We are indeed
going to work on a solution. Lucie will be working on this project as part
of her bachelor thesis starting in August. It is called article
placeholder. You can read more and give input at
Allow me to correct myself: my last line should read bot-generated articles
ALONE won’t jump-start a community, as the Cebuano and Waray examples have
shown.
Josh
Wiadomość napisana przez Josh Lim jamesjoshua...@yahoo.com w dniu 7 lip
2015, o godz. 10:01:
Hi Anders,
While I would
] On Behalf Of Fæ
Sent: 07 July 2015 04:09 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cebuano and Waray-waray Wikipedias among Top 10
From the perspective of a bot writer, and who proposed the automatic creation
of a few thousand drafts for missing English Wikipedia articles for registered
Wiadomość napisana przez Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se w dniu
7 lip 2015, o godz. 04:11:
What gives you the right to be judgemental how they act on their version? Is
that your idea of the movement values and vision, to talk badly of other
efforts?
and I know for a fact
The figures for Cebano is: 20 M speakers (60th biggest language in
world) and 13 active contributors (compare to Dutch 28 M speakers 1183
active)
Waray-Waray has 3,1 M speakers 11 active contributors (but 4 new ones!)
(compare to Slovene 2,4 M speakers, 141 active)
Sverker (who runs
Hoi,
Have you EVER set foot in Wikidata? Because the notion that its data can be
readily understood is absurd. Reasonator can be used in stead it may even
generate text and, this works rather well for English. It could work for
other languages. One problem with Reasonator is that for ordinary
The best evaluation is to understand the evolution and the trend.
In the last months in waray for instance I have seen less than 10 edits in
the overall project in one month.
This is not revitalization. I agree with the enthusiasm of the community
members but I am personally in favor of
I am not saying this should be repeated. I am saying we should respect
their choice, and not as outsiders criticize their effort. or put
erroneous bad faith assumptions on why they did this choice.
Anders
Ilario Valdelli skrev den 2015-07-07 13:21:
The best evaluation is to understand
There is already a consensus on enwiki (please, hold your rotten tomatoes)
that projects like this which have inflated article counts due to extensive
botting rather than through having a lively community not be included on
the main page. I think a lot of the comments here about a huge article
Thanks to have summarized my position.
As speaker than more than one minor language I agree that there is no sense
to inflate articles over the possibility of the small community to manage
them. Not in opposition of automated generated articles but having in my
hands the experience of project
What gives you the right to be judgemental how they act on their
version? Is that your idea of the movement values and vision, to talk
badly of other efforts?
and I know for a fact they did not to this to get into this list you are
upset of. It is untrue when you state like this which have
From the perspective of a bot writer, and who proposed the automatic
creation of a few thousand drafts for missing English Wikipedia
articles for registered monuments in Wales (the proposal was
resisted), I would rather see auto-creation tools limited to
*suggesting* stub articles on user request.
Hoi,
You will appreciate that when text is generated and cached. It may change
when additional statements are made. So it will improve as and when
improved information becomes available.
As someone who knows the IT branch as well, the maintenance of data is a
challenge but you will agree with me
Craig - are you volunteering to lovingly handcraft the Waray encyclopedia
article by article?
Suggesting people go use Wikidata seems crazy. How will Waray speakers even
know that Wikidata exists? How will they know how to manipulate the
interface? More readable information available in the
Hoi,
When people do not edit Wikipedia we are talking about a situation that
does not exist.
I wholeheartedly disagree with you as you mistake the process with the
product. Our aim is to produce a product and we should endeavour to provide
it in a SMART way. We lose out when we do not do the
Yes, and in this case I am saying that the bot populated Wikipedias are
bad products because qualitatively poor, instead of an architecture of a
data population and a creation of articles through Wikidata or through a
central repository.
Basically it's for a control of the content.
A bot
Hoi,
Arguably the same is true for Wikipedia. Many faulty articles exist. There
are many list articles incomplete because people do not maintain them.
Wikilinks refer to the wrong information. Incomplete information is often
as bad as wrong information. Badly written articles are bad particularly
Hoi,
Given that this is the Wikimedia mailing list, the assumption that
Wikipedia is primary is not necessary. The objective of the Wikimedia
Foundation is in this more relevant. Consequently the balance for an
argument is different.
I blog often about issues with Wikidata and Wikipedia. I often
Hoi,
Wikidata like Commons is a project in its own right. Its aim is to
contribute to the aim of the Wikimedia Foundation first and to other
projects second.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 6 July 2015 at 11:42, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote:
If people don't edit Wikipedia, Wikipedia would
I'm a bot operator in Persian Wikipedia (~500K articles) and I'm directly
or indirectly responsible for creating more than half of the articles in
that Wiki using automated or semi-automated tools that I built. If our
language used Latin alphabet, we definitely would be one of the five
biggest
I would consider this discussion as a sensible one if you are editors of
Cebuano and Waray-Waray Wikipedias, oppose the idea of creating
bot-generated articles and have better plan how to increase quality and
quantity of those projects. Optionally, you are always free to offer your
help to those
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi,
When people do not edit Wikipedia we are talking about a situation that
does not exist.
I wholeheartedly disagree with you as you mistake the process with the
product. Our aim is to produce a product and
Gerard, an interesting statistic is that you have chosen to post 7 out of
the 16 emails on this thread in under 2 hours.
Perhaps you might benefit from considering what list subscribers are
expecting and want filling their inboxes, before posting more?
Thanks
Fae ... mobile
I think these wikis have been on that list for a while. I don't know the
specifics of why they're there, though, or comment on the depth/quality of
the articles on the wikis.
Joe
On Sun, 5 Jul 2015 at 22:32 Salvador A salvador1...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi!
I just I noticed that Cebuano and
Hoi,
I would not say that the Encyclopaedia Britannica is NOT an encyclopaedia.
The objective of Wikipedia is EXACTLY that it is read. Not that it is
edited.
You can argue all you like against bot generated articles but in the final
analysis it is doing a much better job than not providing
The 1,2+ M articles on species generated by LsjBot from COL
(CatalogueOfLife) was completed in September 2014.
Now under way by Lsjbot is generation of geographic entities from
GeoNames [1]. Still being in an early phase and there is a lot to look
into like the links to Wikidata. A testrun
https://war.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinaurog:ActiveUsers
https://ceb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espesyal:ActiveUsers
An encyclopedia in the first 10 places without a community is it an
encyclopedia?
Is the community important to say that wikipedia is wikipedia? In this case
these projects are demonstrating
Hoi,
While the quality of the articles is not something I care to discuss. The
main thing of the many articles is that as a result of the existence of
these articles, the number of readers of these languages has gone up and
hte number of editors has gone up as well.
Our aim is to share in the sum
This is an example about how to produce a formal impact without a real
impact.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Salvador A salvador1...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi!
I just I noticed that Cebuano and Waray-waray Wikipedia are inside the list
of the 10 Wikipedias with more articles.[1] It seems it
Hoi,
How do you know that there is no impact ?
https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthlyCombined.htm shows
clearly how much Cebuano has grown considerably in page views. The same is
true for Waray Waray. Compare it to languages with a similar number of
speakers. Please explain how
If people don't edit Wikipedia, Wikipedia would not exist.
As I have said the IT tools to support community are welcome, the IT tools
to populate a wikipedia like a population of a database should not be
welcome in Wikipedia, they are more appropriated for Wikidata where the
integration with
Yes, my concern is not to populate articles with data, because it is
normal.
The recent approach of Wikidata to be connected with data repositories and
to harvest data and to feed Wikidata is the best approach.
My concern is connected with the old approach to have a local repository
(probably
These are fascinating experiments, I hope that the Waray-waray and Cebuano
communities will at some point report back to the wider community as to how
this worked out. My fear is that too fast a growth rate could overwhelm
whatever community we have in those languages leading to burn out of
[mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Amir Ladsgroup
Sent: 06 July 2015 11:49 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cebuano and Waray-waray Wikipedias among Top 10
I'm a bot operator in Persian Wikipedia (~500K articles) and I'm directly or
indirectly responsible
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 4:55 AM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthlyCombined.htm shows
clearly how much Cebuano has grown considerably in page views.
It's a shame we don't have filtered page view data: it'd be good to
know whether
Hoi,
Why not to focus on that technology instead of bots?
Then every Wikipedia could benefit from Lsjbot's sources, without
polluting the article namespace but still providing information to
readers and incentive to editors.
That is EXACTLY what Reasonator and AutoDesc already do.
Content
I can probably speak for those communities. On the whole, the logic behind the
Lsjbot experiment was simple: build it and they will come.
So far though, this hasn’t happened. We from the Tagalog Wikipedia were also
approached for this experiment, but we know what happens when bot-generated
I don't think any bot is subscribed to this list.
Il 07/07/2015 01:08, Richard Symonds ha scritto:
Are there any Cebuano or Waray community members on the list to offer an
opinion?
On 6 Jul 2015 23:47, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I belong to the group of Josh and Ilario
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Richard Symonds
richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Are there any Cebuano or Waray community members on the list to offer an
opinion?
There is no likely productive outcome of sharing more opinions on the bot
issue, even by members of those communities.
Are there any Cebuano or Waray community members on the list to offer an
opinion?
On 6 Jul 2015 23:47, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I belong to the group of Josh and Ilario and others who have strong
objections against the inundation of pseudo articles (one
Completely agree with you Asaf. I don't think it's up to us Wikimedia-l
subscribers, but up to each specific community. We can learn from their
decisions but are on difficult ground if we judge them for it. Your third
paragraph was a bit complex for me to succinctly reword while agreeing
with it,
On 07.07.2015 01:14, Asaf Bartov wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Richard Symonds
richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Are there any Cebuano or Waray community members on the list to offer an
opinion?
2. separate the top 10 issue that was the original trigger for this
renewed
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Richard Symonds
richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
it's a good starting point. But rather than a top list,
perhaps we should be looking at number of editors/number of speakers?
We (well, some of us, I guess), have indeed been looking at that figure
(one
Il 06/07/2015 07:31, Salvador A ha scritto:
Hi!
I just I noticed that Cebuano and Waray-waray Wikipedia are inside the list
of the 10 Wikipedias with more articles.[1]
Let's call them non-redirect pages in the main namespace containing the
text '[[', please.
It seems it happened during
51 matches
Mail list logo
