cheers, Pilchard.

* Do I think a 100% bot-made encyclopedia is a good idea? NO. Of course human editing is essential. I’ve said that on the discussion page mentioned here, and I’ve said that in the discussion of the first closure proposal.

* Do I defend bot-created artricles? YES, for the reasons pointed out at the beginning of this page: these articles are better than nothing — and they also fill gaps in the coverage of a Wikipedia (why is there a stub on this town but not on that town? etc.). (Let me add that I have criteria for them too: I only support like bot- or human-created stubs that are: (a) readable (no gibberish), (b) relevant — contain information that you usually find in reference works and encyclopedias, (c) correct — contain no factual errors.)

* Do I think the proportion of bot-created articles is a problem? NO. If bot-created stubs are a good (not an excellent and worderful, just an OK, not-so-bad) idea, then lots of them are, too. I don’t see how their number changes in any way their (small but true) usefulness.

* But Wikipedia is „an encyclopedia which predominantly incorporates summary texts describing the unique features of its items in indvidual texts“! Well, there are other definitions. One I’ve also seen around is „Wikipedia is an attempt at building a repository of all human knowledge.“ Another one is „Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.“ Which is the best definition? The latter two are, IMHO, very compatible with bot-created articles, even lots of them, while the first one seems to be designed to exclude them.

* Am I devaluating human work by thinking so? NO. Human work usually is A LOT better than bot work (though humans are also known to create what Arnomane calls „junk, crap, rubbish etc.“ too). If there’s a lot of bot work in a Wikipedia, how does that devaluate human work? If there are a lot of „cheap“ novels around, in which way does that devaluate the work of writers like Dostoevsky, Proust, Grass or Faulkner?

* But we get the wrong idea by looking at a big project like the Volapük Wikipedia! We see 100 000 articles and we immediately think it’s like the Britannica! Well, that’s a FALLACY: lots of „cheap“ novels don’t mean their authors are as good as Dostoevsky. (It doesn’t mean that their novels are useless either — they may well be ‘good enough’ by other criteria. Have you ever tried to write a cheap novel and get it published and sold? You’ll see it involves quite a lot of work.).

* But how do we judge the Volapük Wikipedia then? You need two numbers to judge the Volapük Wikipedia: bot-edits and human-edits. By bot-edits, Volapük is a big project; by human-edits, it’s a small project. The English Wikipedia, on the other hand, is a big project by both criteria. That’s the difference, and it should be emphasized. To keep claiming that the number of articles by itself is a good criterion for the overall quality of the project is simply a misuse of statistics. Think of criteria like the one I suggested when I created the „List of Wikipedias by sample of articles“ at Meta. Suggest others if you will and discuss them. But let’s stop thinking that Wikipedia is the Olympic Games: nobody should be there to break world records.

* But Smeira is bad, he’s using „oppressed minority“ and „sovereignty“ rights to hide the problems of the Volapük Wikipedia and escape his due punishment! NO, I am definitely not. I haven’t used the word „minority“ even once in the whole discussion: all my arguments have to do with bot-created stubs and whether or not they’re bad (plus reactions to the comments of other people, considerations about the proposal itself, the fact that the transfer-to-incubator part is technically a very bad idea, etc.). The introductory text to this discussion says this, but does give any examples: only a vague „go there and see for yourselves“. Yes indeed. Please do go there and see for yourselves. While you’re at it, compare Arnomane’s comments with mine: he basically says „bot-created stubs are bad“ and refuses to explain further when asked why; then he keeps accusing me of destroying the debate and hiding the truth behind cloudy words and lots of text. Hm. I admit I write a lot. But look at what I wrote here thus far. Is it hard to understand? Look at what I wrote in the discussion page. Is it hard to understand? You be the judge.

– Smeira

a) Some articles in there were written by humans (for example Smeira), but nearly 100% were generated from other Wikipedia’s templates using a bot.

b) Smeira openly questions if a bot written encyclopedia is a bad thing

Beside on the one side he admits that he wanted to do „something crazy in order to attrac new people to Volapük“ on the other thing he says that „page numbers are not important“. He just argues that way that it suits his plans regardless if it is inconsistent in itself.

Several people have tried to improve the situation inside vo.wikipedia. All they got were unacceptable reactions and even more ridcoulous excuses („you didn’t write anything on your user page“). So vo.wikipedia has challenged the tolerance of others severely and as they do have an impact on the others and as they deny this they lost their souvereignty.

I certainly won’t step back until Smeira accepts that a 100% bot Wikipedia is the worst idea he ever had.

When your issue is with bot generated articles, but more specifically the quality of those discuss this. Build yourself a platform, but do it in a way that is positive. What you have done is massively shot into the foot of this cause. This is a shame because the net result is decidedly negative.
Thanks,
GerardM