Sam, I am quite concerned that you would use a public mailing list to
express your displeasure about a specific individual's block on a
particular project, without ensuring that you had your facts straight.  It
is unfair not only to the project involved, but to the person who is
blocked: nobody needs to have a board trustee shining a bright light on
their removal from the project. In fact, your using a specific editor as
your poster boy for bot editing without knowing why his restrictions are in
place is rather inconsiderate to the editor, the project, and the other
people who think you're giving wise counsel.

Before you do that in the future, perhaps it would be a good idea to
understand why a project had to, after years of trying to work with a
valued editor and to mitigate the problems caused, finally remove him from
the project.


On 4 February 2014 07:05, Samuel Klein <> wrote:

> Bot generated articles have been important throughout the history of the
> wiki Projects.  They are essential to our future.  They have also always
> been  controversial with some editors.
> Agreed that not showing them or remaining skeptical rather than learning to
> use them better will be a proviso and may lead to forks.  I am sad when I
> see  veryactive bot and script users blocked on larger wikis (Rich
> Farmborough comes to mind from enwp) and perhaps we can find ways to
> recognize the best bots just as we do articles.
> On Feb 4, 2014 3:31 AM, "Anders Wennersten" <>
> wrote:
> > Nemo has found this wiki which I find very interesting [1]. it contains
> > 1,68 million articles and seems to be a copy of articles from Lithunian
> > Wikipedia + some 1,5 million botgenerated articles, with focus on species
> > (i know from Lsjbot that there are at least some 1,3 M articles of
> species
> > to be found from reliable databases)
> >
> > The effort seems to be done by just a few lithuanians wikipedians with
> the
> > right technical skill and insight on wikipedia, they are probably active
> > also on ltwp[2].
> >
> > For me it is a reminder what will happen if we continue to be sceptical
> of
> > botgerneration of articles with correct info with verfied sources.
> Creative
> > people will do it anyway and then outside Wikpedia, which could make
> >  Wikipedia redundant in the same way Wikipedia has made the old
> paperbased
> > encyclopedias redundant. The online encyclopedia with most knowledge to
> the
> > readers will survive, and botgenerated verified articles contains more
> > knowledge then no article on the subject. Also note that the most active
> > now are languages like Vietnamese and Lithunian, with small communities
> all
> > aware it will take eons of time if to expected these will be created
> > manually
> >
> > I do would like the movement and upcoming strategy to make a proactive
> > stand re semiautomted articles
> >
> > On sv:wp we have had this focus, since last august with including upload
> > on wikidata as part of the articlegeneration. We have found the inclusion
> > of Wikidata much more complex then we anticipated. We thought half a year
> > would be enough to "get a set of items with proper 100% quality data into
> > Wikidata", but we now think it will take something like two years for
> just
> > a small set of 10000 articles :( This have not changed our belief in this
> > approach, but we would certainly appreciate it there were other entities
> > doing the same and with whom we could exchange experience (or a central
> > initiative)
> >
> > Anders
> >
> > [1]
> > Start page
> > Latest  changes
> > For random article press Atsitiktinis puslapis <
> > Specialus:Atsitiktinis_puslapis/Straipsnis>
> > [2]
> > ltwp
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >
> > Unsubscribe:,
> > <>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>
Wikimedia-l mailing list

Reply via email to