User talk:Yekrats/Arkivo 1

Sorry. I didn't noticed I was editing an old revision. --Snowdog 18:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Proposal

Hi Yekrats! Thank you very much for taking the time to do this proposal -- I agree this is exactly what we should be doing now. Here I offer a few comments that might help:

1. One question: where should this proposal be submitted? It's not a "closure proposal", so not under the closure proposal pages; but I don't know how to classify it. Maybe "policy proposal"? Any ideas? (Besides, is it a proposal -- i.e. are you going to propose specific answers to all questions -- or is it a discussion -- you want to know what suggestions other people have?)
2. "Botopedia": sounds a bit offensive (what if someone called bot-limiters "botophobes"? :-). Wouldn't it be better to talk about "high percentage of bot-created articles"?
3. There is the question of whether it is a good idea to make bot-created stubs a cross-wiki policy topic. Where would people discuss if that's important enough to override wiki-autonomy?
4. It seems to me it would be an interesting approach to ask for suggestions (maybe have a heading saying: "Proposed solutions" for people to add comments to?)
5. Is mentioning JW's opinion per se as an argument a good idea? Sounds like an appeal to authority rather than to a vote. Wouldn't it be better to say something like "Many Wikipedians at all levels (e.g. Jimbo Wales) want to limit bot-created articles, to a much harsher extent than the proposal below?"
6. I like the idea of a modular structure, where different opinions have a place to be discussed and seen. Perhaps in different subsections? Also, note that there are various "mixed opinions" (some people who support bot-created stubs don't want to use them to attract new Wikipedians). Here is a suggested structure (people would be encouraged to place in these sections only comments illustrating a new aspect/problem/solution; discussions would be conducted in the final section, "General Discussion", in various threads):

   Is a high percentage of bot-created articles a problem?

   YES. Possible problems (new suggestions welcome)

   1) Affect perceived image / reputation of Wikipedia in the external world

   2) Uses and misuses of bot-created articles:

   2a.) "Adding information too quickly?"

   2b.) "Increasing project size too fast?"

   2c.) "Introducing too many errors?"

   2d.) "Possible 'advertising'/'political' uses?"

   NO. Possible prejudice (new suggestions welcome)

   1) Isn't relevant/accurate information always good on Wikipedia?

   1a) Is it better to improve stubs (even by bots) or to delete them?

   2) Human vs. bot-created stubs: any real differences?

   3) Do bot-created articles belittle human-created articles?

   4) Shouldn't human-made stubs be included in "limiting" measures?

   Possible solutions (new suggestions welcome)

   1) No bot-created articles at all;

   2) Some bot-created articles, within limits

   2a) e.g. 75% bot-created x 25% human-created

   3) Bot-created articles limited only by stub quality criteria

   3a) E.g. readability, relevance, accuracy

   Remedies for noncompliance.

   (Your suggestions are good. I'd add like to add a suggestion against people who exaggerate in asking for requests or in executing them. Something like: "People who abuse the rules by asking for trimming projects for frivolous reasons, or who trim more than was decided, should also be warned and, if need be, stripped of their misused privileges.")

--Smeira 16:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Yekrats. I've just had a look at your proposal, and it does seem to me that you've struck a good tone with respect to specific Wikipedias -- you don't seem to be singling out vo.wp, and you present what you see as the problem. Congrats for that! It's quite a step forward, I think. I would only say that the other viewpoint wasn't represented there -- so I think I'll go ahead and add a few sections to it, along the lines of the ones I proposed above. Tell me what you think afterwards. (I'll copy this comment on the discussion page.) --Smeira 18:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)