Mike, If we're thinking about having article generators produce articles "on the fly" and deliver them to millions of readers in response to queries, especially in foreign languages, then that doesn't meet my definition of "that isn't what is intended at all, obviously".
Andreas On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:33 AM, Michael Peel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 16 Feb 2016, at 00:26, Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Here is another such example. Jimmy Wales has tonight told[1] a volunteer > > > > ---o0o--- > > > > First the idea that Wikidata could be used to "construct articles" with > "no > > need for editors to edit actual article content" is pretty absurd from a > > technological point of view. Major breakthroughs in AI would be > > necessary. That isn't what is intended at all, obviously. > > That seems logical. Wikidata can in principle provide basic articles that > can then be improved by editors, but at the moment it's just getting up to > the standard where it can provide infobox contents. Or do you think that > Wikidata can provide FA-quality articles already? > > Thanks, > Mike > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: [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 New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
