Hi Asaf, did you read my mail or is this an automated answer because of
using the word monkey? Or is this a just a try like an official muzzle?
Really rude for me is, when some Wikipedians think, they have to start
a professional service company for transporting simple facts without
efforts to transport and support knowlede to and from people. Especially
if it turns out that these facts in not so few cases are wrong, as Kurt
Kulac has already been demonstrated.
Loosing our original idea for which this project is donated by thousands
of donaters! From which you are paid for. As an unpaid, long term
Wikipedian in Residence I do know what I´m talking about.
With actions like this, we destroy our sources! All these facts are
available right now openly. Why do we need these facts as a simple copy
in Wikipedia? With no additional benefit? Except a dubious rise of so
Wikipedia also has the charm of imperfection, which I certainly
appreciate. The same imperfection, which is inherent to the people who
will accomplish this tasks together with us.
Unfortunately there are some people who think that everything imperfect
must be destroyed. But we will never ever reach this perfection. Just as
we can never be perfect by ourselves. In a world that is constantly
On your personal page on the foundation site, you cite Epictetus:
I will reply with Epictetus too:
No thing great is created suddenly, any more than a bunch of grapes or a
fig. If you tell me that you desire a fig, I answer you that there must
be time. Let it first blossom, then bear fruit, then ripen.
Am 17.06.2013 22:27, schrieb Asaf Bartov:
Hubertl, your e-mail was rude, even if you did not mean it to be. Please
remember hundreds of people read every e-mail sent to this list, and
civility is expected.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Per A.J. Andersson <p...@telia.com> wrote:
Nice to know German language Wikipedia is full of sane people. Good for
But maybe you don't need bots, so that's your decision. (You do not need
infoboxes either, as I see it, and that's also your decision. Lsjbot makes
infoboxes, among other things.)
Yes, a larger database is more of a burden to support than a smaller one.
Our experience at svwp is that automated help does not take away from the
human part of the user community. Personally I think a larger database of
comparable quality (built by any method) makes for a larger footprint = a
greater chance of catching new editors. Wikipedia did that for me.
My view on it is that larger communities can sustain and maintain a
certain database easier than smaller communities. Wikipedia communities to
a large extent depend on the language size surrounding it. We already have
automation around us at several levels, and there are editing tools that
make for faster editing – by humans. The use of these are seldom questioned.
Best of wishes,
/Per A.J. Andersson
user Paracel63 at svwp
(carbon-based lifeform from Sweden)
2013-06-17, 12:09, skrev Hubertl:
Payin´ peanuts, gettin´ monkeys
Servin´ facts, gettin´ idiots.
An unmanageable, not maintainable mass of articles is the best way to
breed idiots. Because facts do not create knowledge.
If that is our goal, then automatically created Wikipedias ar the best
way to solve one of our biggest problems, namely the permanent loss of
Maybe it is completely sufficient if you know that somewhere facts are
stored in a most possible stupid form.
I started more than fifty years ago learning about facts, facts without
understanding. But nine years ago I startet to learn something about
knowledge, understanding and correlations.
Why do not you need people like me? If we have bots now?
Do we want to make ourselves more important with impressive numbers?
The german language Wikipedia has no single article that was generated by
a bot. I'm proud of it. If this would take place in de:WP, many people will
leave this project. With certainty.
Anyway, that does not matter, a bot is probably much better for monkeys!
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l mailing list