On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Keegan, calling people names isn't helpful here.
​I didn't. I'm calling out the tone.

> 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.

​Yes, the horrible place bots like User:Rambot on the English Wikipedia.
The bot started almost every place stub in the United States, and almost
every one of those seeds has generated a more fully formed article.

> 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.

​Risk management is one thing. A foreseeable disaster is quite another.
Overblown hyperbole.

> 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.

​Mmmhmm, and who should be the ones to set the goals? The ones that "know

I'd advise you all who'd like to tell people what they're doing wrong,
instead focus on helping people to do things right.

Otherwise, this is just patronizing.​



This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
is in a personal capacity.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to