Tell them Sandister, I love journalists trained by Brits, far better than those trained by the Yankees.
More respects to actual human editors by the way... Oral www.about.me/oralofori On Feb 26, 2014 2:43 PM, "Sandister Tei" <[email protected]> wrote: > Statistically maybe. > > In terms of maintenance, absolutely. > > But in terms of starting articles and updating them plus meaningful edits > that only human intelligence can do, the bots can't claim that. > > Bot edits may form the majority statistically. But the story and topical > edits that shape articles, is a human thing. > > The article was written by a journalist. And Oral you know our people. > Suddenly experts on subjects they know nothing about, just to put out > stories. > On Feb 26, 2014 5:33 PM, "Oral Ofori" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I guess they failed to count edits in developing countries, mostly in >> Africa... where people like Rexford Nkansah amd Oarabile Mumdongo among >> many others are making hard core edits by hand and mind. Pretty interesting >> read though: >> >> http://www.newsweek.com/wikipedia-edited-bots-thats-good-thing-230234 >> >> >> >> >> Oral >> >> www.about.me/oralofori >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-GH mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-gh >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-GH mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-gh > >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-GH mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-gh
