The best evaluation is to understand the evolution and the trend. In the last months in waray for instance I have seen less than 10 edits in the overall project in one month.
This is not revitalization. I agree with the enthusiasm of the community members but I am personally in favor of comparison of numbers in a long time perspective. I am happy to see more data and to monitor them to know if this is a model to be replied but the numbers are not really supportive. Regards Il 07/Lug/2015 13:12, "Anders Wennersten" <[email protected]> ha scritto: > What gives you the right to be judgemental how they act on their version? > Is that your idea of the movement values and vision, to talk badly of other > efforts? > > and I know for a fact they did not to this to get into this list you are > upset of. It is untrue when you state "like this which have inflated > article counts" > > And I also know as a fact they are very happy with this effort because it > has energized their small community. You talk of big increased I think of > how many communities of this size that implodes which is a more common > scenario. > > As I have already stated I have no problem that you (and others) have > another view of the benefits of botgenrated arciels. > > But please be supportive to the very small communities, who do their best > to survive and grow > > Anders > > Craig Franklin skrev den 2015-07-07 12:21: > >> There is already a consensus on enwiki (please, hold your rotten tomatoes) >> that projects like this which have inflated article counts due to >> extensive >> botting rather than through having a lively community not be included on >> the main page. I think a lot of the comments here about a huge article >> count attracting communities to curate that content are somewhat >> disingenous, it seems that despite having lots of articles there is only >> one active user on Waray Wikipedia, who is responsible for more than 99% >> of >> total edits. As Milos has alluded to, "number of articles" is a poor >> metric for understanding how useful a particular project is to speakers of >> that language. >> >> Speaking here as a speaker of a minority language myself, I understand the >> temptation of quickly creating lots of articles to have some sort of >> demonstrable impact, and I believe there is a place for some bot >> generation >> of articles on any project. But after hitting "Random" a few times on >> Waray, and seeing what came back, I'm not really sure how this is a more >> useful resource for speakers of the language than just going into Wikidata >> with the interface set to Waray. I believe the time honoured, if slower >> way of creating a Wikipedia, lovingly handcrafting it article by article, >> is far more likely to lead to a positive impact for people. >> >> Cheers, >> Craig >> >> >> >> On 7 July 2015 at 07:55, Asaf Bartov <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Indeed, as Josh points out, there are also costs (even if only perceived >>> or >>> reputational costs) to populating a tiny Wikipedia with next to no active >>> editors with hundreds of thousands of bot-generated stubs. Is having >>> stubs >>> on all French communes in Cebuano better than having nothing in Cebuano? >>> Probably, yes. And by increasing pageviews (which is measurable), one >>> increases the likelihood of "organic" conversion of readers into editors >>> (which is *still* the most effective way to make Wikipedians, albeit not >>> the easiest to directly control). >>> >>> But, again as Josh says, that increase in *editorship* is yet to be >>> attained. The Waray Wikipedia (btw, "Waray-Waray" is, it turns out, >>> objectionable to Waray speakers, and is mildly derogatory) is still >>> largely >>> edited by *one* committed individual, User:JinJian[1], as the stats >>> plainly >>> show. Given that the bot was run *with* JinJian's consent, there can be >>> no >>> objection to its operation. >>> >>> As Milos suggests, there seems to be an emotional response to those >>> Wikipedias appearing in the top 10 view. This should be divorced from >>> those communities' sovereign decisions to run or not run the bot. If the >>> top 10 inclusion truly bothers people, and there's a strong consensus >>> that >>> Wikipedias largely populated by bot-generated stubs "should" not be >>> included, a discussion could be had on what this view *should* mean, >>> precisely, if not plainly the top 10 Wikipedias by article count. And >>> whatever refined definition is agreed upon (e.g. thresholds like a >>> minimum >>> number of active editors, or some formula involving the "article depth" >>> figure, or whatever) can then be made the basis for the list, or indeed, >>> for a different list, that would be more satisfying for those who are >>> displeased with being "under" these Wikipedias on the list. >>> >>> A. >>> >>> [1] http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaWAR.htm#wikipedians >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Josh Lim <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I can probably speak for those communities. On the whole, the logic >>>> behind the Lsjbot experiment was simple: build it and they will come. >>>> >>>> So far though, this hasn’t happened. We from the Tagalog Wikipedia were >>>> also approached for this experiment, but we know what happens when >>>> bot-generated articles are made: the community is overwhelmed. Out of >>>> >>> that >>> >>>> fear, we declined to participate. >>>> >>>> One of the concerns some editors in the Philippines have (and these are >>>> sentiments I share) is that these two Wikipedias turn us into a >>>> laughingstock, willing to increase article numbers at any cost. At one >>>> point, the Cebuano Wikipedia was described as a Wikipedia of French >>>> communes, not content relevant to Cebu or Cebuanos. I don’t think we’d >>>> like that with other Wikipedias in the Philippines or elsewhere. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Josh >>>> >>>> Wiadomość napisana przez WereSpielChequers < >>>>> >>>> [email protected]> >>> >>>> w dniu 6 lip 2015, o godz. 04:52: >>>> >>>>> These are fascinating experiments, I hope that the Waray-waray and >>>>> >>>> Cebuano >>>> >>>>> communities will at some point report back to the wider community as to >>>>> >>>> how >>>> >>>>> this worked out. My fear is that too fast a growth rate could overwhelm >>>>> whatever community we have in those languages leading to burn out of >>>>> existing editors dealing with too many newbies at once, my suspicion is >>>>> that this will vary by language depending on such variables as the >>>>> >>>> ratio >>> >>>> of >>>> >>>>> PC users to smartphone users, and the ease with which editors can >>>>> >>>> access >>> >>>> the necessary character sets. >>>>> >>>>> We have long known that bot creation of stubs that are of interest to >>>>> speakers of a language is a way to recruit readers, and that some >>>>> >>>> readers >>> >>>> become editors. What I think we don't yet know is the maximum growth >>>>> >>>> rate >>> >>>> that a wiki community can cope with. >>>>> >>>>> There is also a sustainability angle, though hopefully we can mitigate >>>>> >>>> that >>>> >>>>> by bot replacing of articles where the source has changed but they >>>>> >>>> haven't >>>> >>>>> been edited on the Cebuano or Waray-waray Wikipedias. Otherwise within >>>>> >>>> a >>> >>>> decade we could have pedias that look very dated, for example various >>>>> record holders whose articles in other languages show their records >>>>> >>>> have >>> >>>> been surpassed, and villages >>>>> >>>>> WereSpielChequers >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>>>> >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>>> >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>>>> >>>> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> >>>> >>>> JAMES JOSHUA G. LIM >>>> Bachelor of Arts in Political Science >>>> Class of 2013, Ateneo de Manila University >>>> Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines >>>> >>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> | +63 (915) >>>> 321-7582 >>>> Facebook/Twitter: akiestar | Wikimedia: Sky Harbor >>>> http://about.me/josh.lim <http://about.me/josh.lim> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>>> [email protected] >>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>>> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Asaf Bartov >>> Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org> >>> >>> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the >>> sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! >>> https://donate.wikimedia.org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>> [email protected] >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> [email protected] >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
