Am 28.09.2015 um 16:43 schrieb Thomas Douillard: > Daniel Wrote: >> (*) This follows the principle of "magic is bad, let people edit". Allowing >> inconsistencies means we can detect errors by finding such inconsistencies. >> Automatically enforcing consistency may lead to errors propagating out of >> view >> of the curation process. The QA process on wikis is centered around edits, so >> every change should be an edit. Using a bot to fill in missing "reverse" >> links >> follows this idea. The fact that you found an issue with the data because you >> saw a bot do an edit is an example of this principle working nicely. > > That might prove to become a worser nightmare than the magic one ... It's > seems > like refusing any kind of automation because it might surprise people for the > sake of exhausting them to let them do a lot of manual work.
I'm not arguing against "any" kind of automation. I'm arguing against "invisible" automation baked into the backend software. We(*) very much encourage "visible" automation under community control like bots and other (semi-)automatic import tools like WiDaR. -- daniel (*) I'm part of the wikidata developer team, not an active member of the community. I'm primarily speaking for myself here, from my personal experience as a wikipedia and common admin. I know from past discussions that "bots over magic" is considered Best Practice among the dev team, and I believe it's also the approach preferred by the Wikidata community, but I cannot speak for them. -- Daniel Kinzler Senior Software Developer Wikimedia Deutschland Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
