The Vietnamese and Philippines-based Waray-Waray Wikipedias have crossed the one million article rubicon—the tenth and eleventh to do so. Just like the Swedish Wikipedia, the sites have attained this symbolic milestone with the help of bots, a process that has divided opinions among Wikimedians from several languages. For example, for a previous Signpost article on the topic, German Wikipedian Achim Raschka pointed us to an entry Denis Diderot wrote for the Encyclopédie, titled "Aguaxima". Diderot lamented that all they knew about the Aguaxima was that it was a plant in Brazil, yet he still had to describe it: "If all the same I mention this plant here, along with several others that are described just as poorly, then it is out of consideration for certain readers who prefer to find nothing in a dictionary article or even to find something stupid than to find no article at all."

In an email to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, Vietnamese Wikipedian Minh Nguyen wrote that some editors on the site shared similar concerns and were "alarmed" at the sharp uptick in bot-created articles. Yet at the same time, crossing the one million article mark with a high proportion of auto-articles led the community to look at its small size—its roughly 1250 active editors is less than the Catalan Wikipedia, a language with almost 60 million less speakers—and they are taking steps to ease the learning curves of new editors.

The question of active users is even more pertinent for fellow millionaire Waray-Waray, which has just 71 active users. The related Cebuano Wikipedia, which has also embraced bot-created articles and will soon join the million article club, has even fewer.

Meanwhile, the Swedish Wikipedia's article-creation bot has started editing again. The bot's operator told the Signpost that the source code has been rewritten to use the most recent references, though it is currently mostly operating on the Waray-Waray and Cebuano Wikipedias, which will soon also have one million articles. Other Wikipedias, such as Farsi (mostly spoken in Iran), have also expressed an interest in the bot's operation. Why have other Wikipedias not adopted similar processes, aside from those (like the English and German) that have philosophical objections? Lsj believes "it is mostly a matter of whether there is somebody who knows both bots and the target language well enough, and is prepared to devote the time required. Small language versions likely do not have such a person."

This article was updated after publication with information and comments from Minh Nguyen.

• Commons devolving into full-blown URAA conflict: Battle lines have formed over the past few months with a split in the Commons community over the American Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which restored US copyrights on several works. While arguments over the Commons mission have gone on for years (in the Signpost in the past year alone—op-ed, reply, and forum), the URAA debate came to a head only recently with a large community request for comment. This was closed with a strong majority in favor of disallowing deletions based on URAA alone, but a subsequent discussion was rejected both on legal grounds and as being, in the words of several editors, "unclear". Recent discussions have taken place on the Wikimedia-l mailing list, but the current situation is muddled. A new proposal to break the deadlock has been started on Commons' administrators' noticeboard, but Wikimedia Foundation board member Samuel Klein has quickly suggested a major change that would modify Commons' policy to read "Keep something that is public domain in its country of origin, as long as there is reason to believe that rights-holders would want it to be used in the rest of the world."
• Wiknics: US and Dutch Wikimedians are organizing Wiknics for early July.
• Wikimania volunteers needed: The organizers of this year's London Wikimania have issued a call for volunteers to serve in a number of capacities during the conference week (8–10 August).
• Engineering goals: The Wikimedia Foundation's Engineering and Product Development department is currently formulating its goals for the 2014–15 fiscal year. Editors are invited to contribute their views on the draft plan's talk page.
• Quarterly reviews: Three quarterly reviews have been published on Meta: the editing team (formerly VisualEditor), Parsoid team, and Analytics team. Quarterly reviews aim to ensure accountability and allow senior Foundation staff to offer specific guidance to their proliferous and diverse initiatives.

← Previous "News and notes"

Next "News and notes" →

In this issue

25 June 2014 (all comments)

News and notes

Traffic report

Exclusive

Discussion report

Featured content

WikiProject report

Recent research

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

On 30 June 2014, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-06-25/News and notes was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. (Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

• I posted a fairly lengthy response to wikimedia-l regarding the state of bot-created stubs at the Vietnamese Wikipedia. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Mxn, I've updated the article above with information from you. Thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, The ed17. It can be misleading sometimes to compare active users across different language editions, because for instance Catalonia probably has better Internet penetration than Vietnam. But the number of active users is lower than many in the community would like: we're #25 among Wikipedias by views per hour but only #117 by editors per speaker. I think most view it as room for the community to improve – or a metric to game... – rather than as a knock against bot operators. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• We've made Slashdot! Thank you all for reading this story, and I hope you enjoy it; please suggest any improvements here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I do hope there will be a contribution towards Wikipedia to assist -- it sounds like a lot of servers, storage and bandwidth will be consumed by this project. Wikipedia is free, but the hardware most certainly isn't.203.12.85.25 (talk) 03:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This headline is dubious, to say the least. NARA isn't uploading all its holdings. It's uploading all its digital images. Big difference. 32.218.35.228 (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't have wrote it in the article had Dominic not directly said "our goal is to have all of our holdings ... available on Wikimedia Commons". :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The corollary here is that another of our big goals is that "one day, all of our records will be online." These are big goals when we are talking about more than a billion records, but the point was intentional that we are not limiting ourselves to previously digitized material. Our goal is that Wikimedia Commons should be an end point of the digitization workflow for all future digitizations, too. Dominic·t 21:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This is utterly absurd. NARA has billions and trillions of records. There is no way on earth that it is going to upload them all to Commons. The last estimate I saw of how long it would take NARA to digitize its holdings was > 1000 years. (See: [1], [2].) There is obviously some misunderstanding or miscommunication here. This probably just refers to NARA'S extant digital images, not to all its holdings. 32.218.35.228 (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Who's to say this pace doesn't pick up at some point? Anyway, to clarify again, this is about their entire holdings. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]}

• Credulous, aren't you? The pace would have to pick up 1000% in order for the 1800 year estimate in the NY Times article to be reduced to 18 years. What has changed at NARA in the past 5-6 years to account for such an overwhelming change in pace? Nothing. Not one single thing. (Or perhaps the Koch brothers died and left all their wealth to NARA, and I missed the news.) You can believe whatever you like, but neither a flat earth nor the assertion that NARA will upload all its holdings makes the least bit of sense. 32.218.35.228 (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Just because a mission goal is big and audacious doesn't mean it is absurd. I think Wikipedians, who work for the mission of "a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge" will naturally understand this. The "billions and trillions of records" is made-up number, overstating the holdings (which may be several billion at most) by orders of magnitude. But, in any case, it's true that NARA has a lot of stuff yet to digitize before it can be uploaded. It is also true that it has millions of records already digitized which we aim to put on Wikimedia Commons, and that in itself is no small task. Dominic·t 00:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Press coverage: TechCrunch, Techlicious, Gigjets, InTheCapital, Smithsonian Magazine, and Fedscoop. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tangential: Financial Express (India). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]