Hello,
I am also unhappy with the mail from Hubertl, and also some remarks that
good be understood as a criticism of the German Wikipedia editing
community. Actually, both opinions coexist also in de.WP, although the anti
bot faction is obviously stronger.
My concern is that bot articles usually stay the same and don't grow much.
They give a bad impression about a Wikipedia language version, and there is
no one to update them. Maybe it would be better to support WikiData and
later find a solution with WikiData to provide data to small or large
Wikipedia language versions.
Kind regards
Ziko






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ziko van Dijk
voorzitter / president Wikimedia Nederland
deputy chair Wikimedia Chapters Association Council

Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
Postbus 167
3500 AD Utrecht
http://wikimedia.nl
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


2013/6/17 Per A.J. Andersson <p...@telia.com>

> Hi!
>
> Sad for seeing you so disappointed. Good to see you have insight in
> butterflies. So I hope you will make your knowledge visible on dewp, where
> neither genera so far have found its way into articles. enwp (together with
> viwp!) has at least the genus "Jameela" as an article.
>
> That aside, is it really a disaster that svwp relies on scientific texts
> that was unquestioned until three years ago? I think maybe there are more
> pressing concerns in the development of our wikipedias.
>
> Best of wishes,
> /Per
> Paracel63 at svwp
>
> 2013-06-17, 22:29, skrev Kurt Kulac:
>
>
>  i don´t want to repeat all those arguments already quoted (lennard
>> already mentioned achim raschkas criticism, which i fully agree with),
>> since what happend, already happend, and will unstoppably happen in the
>> future.  but i would say first of all the strategic goal is not to
>> contribute hundreds of mistakes a day. just to take the 1 millionth
>> article Erysichton elaborata: after an advice on the talk page a HUMAN
>> added, that the species is probably synonymized with Erysichton palmyra.
>> so far, so good. but even this correction is not enough. in 2010 the
>> genus erysichton was redefined and a new genus, jameela was described.
>> both taxa now desrcibed as in sv.wikipedia are invalid.
>>
>> so just concerning this tiny tiny group of articles, there is already a
>> bunch of mistakes, the bot copied out of outdated databases. wouldn´t be
>> a big deal, if somebody mentioned that the articles sticked to the old
>> view. but that´s something a bot can´t handle. so how reliable is the
>> rest of the articles?
>>
>> a bot can be a convenient helper for authors, who know, how to handle
>> it, as it seems has happened with the creation of the articles about
>> swedish lakes (i´m no expert with that though). but it is a desastrous
>> tool for our whole movement, if you create hundreds of thousands (!)
>> articles, without the slightest idea, how to handle the contradictions,
>> that will appear doubtlessly?
>>
>> it´s a sad thing, that you mention quality and this action in one
>> centence...
>>
>> truly utterly disappointed encyclopedic greetings,
>> kurt
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Unsubscribe: 
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<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

Reply via email to