On 4 February 2014 15:54, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Risker, out of interest, considering my long track record of useful
>> bot-work on Commons, would you support my proposal to let Faebot do
>> some sensible non-controversial work on en.wp or do you think I am a
>> danger to Wikimedia?
>> I'd defer to the opinion of the Bot Approval Group, Fae.  Bots have done
> (and continue to do) extremely useful work on English Wikipedia. They've
> also been involved with some difficult-to-fix harm (usually unintentional,
> by poor programming or without understanding of underlying content issues),
> and unfortunately there has been a pattern of a handful of bot owners not
> cleaning up those sorts of problems.  This has resulted in the bar being
> raised for everyone.
> The issue of bot article creation is one that will vary widely from project
> to project depending on the culture and philosophy of the community. If we
> think a bit, we're all likely to come up with a project or two that
> expanded rapidly with the use of bots, only to find that the content added
> had to be removed because it didn't meet copyright requirements or was of
> very poor quality.  On the other hand, we've also seen brilliant successes.
> And yes, there was some fairly significant early expansion of English
> Wikipedia through bot article creation.  Some of those articles have barely
> been touched since - except by other bots.
> Risker

I take that as a no.

fae...@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm

Wikimedia-l mailing list
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to