Keegan, calling people names isn't helpful here.

We've already had horrible projects to write tons of stubs before, like the
"place" bots. And in those cases, we'd know at least roughly what they
would do and how.

This project is going for 100k articles. There are as of this writing 118
editors signed up. That is, even if we presume 100% participation (which is
generally wildly optimistic), nearly 1000 articles per editor to reach that
goal. If somehow that does happen, there are four judges who would need to
review, if the goal is reached, 25000 articles each. Those are not
realistic numbers.

Add into that financial incentives for being the most prolific, and we're
setting up for a very foreseeable disaster.

I have no problems with editing initiatives focused on underrepresented
areas. But they need to have realistic goals, numbers actually run during
planning, and most importantly, no financial rewards. This project is not a
good idea.


On Oct 15, 2017 11:53 AM, "Keegan Peterzell" <> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Gnangarra <> wrote:
> > I cant believe this
> >
> > in_Red/The_World_Contest
> > has
> > got WMF funding, the idea of trying to create 100,000 stub articles on
> > english wikipedia without any thought to how it'll impact on the
> > community.
> >
> > I find it ironic that a competition is being funded to encourage current
> > contributors to do what we wont accept from new editors.  If a new editor
> > was to create an article it wouldnt pass through the Articles for
> Creation
> > process because its half the size of the minimum set there. Many of the
> > competition articles will just get tagged CSD - A1, A7, A9 even G2
> >
> > While there is a nice bot that will count the size of the prose, there is
> > no automated process for checking copyright violations, checking for
> > notability and most importantly checking for BLP with the aim of 100,000
> > the community will years to clean up the mess that is about to be
> created.
> >
> > ​we are 15 days from this disaster commencing​
> >
> ​Here's another unsolicited thought:
> Instead of complaining and writing seemingly sexist screeds about attempts
> to broaden the breadth of knowledge within Wikipedia, why don't you help?
> I'm sure copyediting, referencing, infoboxes, and all the other general
> wiki work will need some assistance.​ You have years of experience editing
> the wikis. Seems like a win/win.
> --
> ~Keegan
> This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
> is in a personal capacity.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to