At Wikidata the number of items and the associated data is growing
steadily. We are dealing with the aftermath of some bots and to be honest,
that is also very much the name of the game.

An example: many species have been added in the ceb nl sv Wikipedia and it
would be wonderful if the "parent taxon" would be included [1] for all of
them. This is now happening in a "one at a time" fashion.

What is also happening is new information that is added in Wikidata from
external sources. I blogged about this [2] and in my opinion this is
fabulous. What is so great is that any Wikipedia that includes "Wikidata
search" to its extended search already benefits. Every community can choose
to add stub articles based on the information in Wikidata.

In my opinion data that has some relevance can be included in Wikidata
particularly when it is rich in statements and references to external
sources. With great information in Wikidata, it becomes possible to use it
to build even more extensive stub articles. Such things are starting to

Bot created information is controversial in many Wikipedias. It is not in
Wikidata. Very welcome is all the data that enriches the items we already
know. Very welcome is the data on the things we do not yet know but
appreciate as relevant.

[2] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/02/wikidata-ntf4-human-gene.html

On 4 February 2014 09:31, Anders Wennersten <m...@anderswennersten.se>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 http://lietuvai.lt/wiki/Pagrindinis_puslapis
> Latest  changes http://lietuvai.lt/wiki/Specialus:Naujausi_puslapiai
> For random article press Atsitiktinis puslapis <http://lietuvai.lt/wiki/
> Specialus:Atsitiktinis_puslapis/Straipsnis>
> [2]
> ltwp https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagrindinis_puslapis
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to