On 4 February 2014 15:54, Risker <[email protected]> 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 -- [email protected] http://j.mp/faewm _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
