Wikipedia talk:History of Wikipedia bots/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:History of Wikipedia bots. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Eastman
I was the one who loaded the Eastman entries. Was the IP really blocked? I never had any problems loading articles. We simply discussed the issues and worked it out. - User:Amillar 2002-11-07T15:59:21
- Hi Alan, I have added a bit more detail. I'm guessing it was the 2002 import that resulted in a blocked IP. Please add more to this section if there was any other relevant discussions on wiki or the mailing lists. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I did Wikipedia:Status of FOLDOC import myself, the articles were imported manually and edited by human beings. -- Stephen Gilbert 13:06 Nov 26, 2002 (UTC)
I noticed that the main page said that there were objections to the material added from the Easton's Bible Dictionary (for biased prose and being written in pedantic Victorian prose), but apparently no objections for the material from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. I have to say that the 1911 EB may not be so blatantly biased, but it is still heavily Euro-centric, and quite condescending to non-Europeans. It also shares the same problem with Victorian prose. My personal opinion is that every article that was imported from the 1911 EB should have been put into the subcategory Category:1911 Britannica articles needing updates, and only after they have been significantly updated should they be moved to Category:1911 Britannica. I've also found articles that did not have any category tag for the 1911 EB even when they had material from it (e.g. Avicenna--tag now added, although it is a little redundant since it is already in Category:Wikipedia cleanup). Without looking very hard, I also found Gong which like the Avicenna article had user written text without any merging with the 1911 EB text.
I've also noticed that when the {{1911}} template (This article incorporates text from the public domain 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica.Category:1911 Britannica) hasn't been used, there is a wide variety of text describing the 1911 EB as the source, with the remarks sometimes at the top of the page, and sometimes at the bottom. Some examples are shown below (note some just say 1911 Encyclopedia without the Britannica):
- This entry was originally from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
- This article incorporates material from a 1911 encyclopedia. Please update as needed.
- This entry was adapted from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
- Initial text from a 1911 Encyclopedia. Please update as needed.
- From a 1911 encyclopedia
- This incorporates text from a 1911 encyclopedia.
- Note: This article is largely based on an out-of-copyright 1911 encyclopedia article. This material has been removed from the article on agnosticism. It is written from the viewpoint of its time of writing and place of origin, and needs extensive editing to bring it up to date and to conform with the Wikipedia NPOV policy.
[[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 11:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Dead Link
Does anyone know more about the bot that imported articles from Easton's Bible Dictionary? The link in the main page entry seems to be dead. Thanks in advance...UOJComm (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hi UOJComm, I have added more detail if you are still interested. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- Cool...very cool. What made you find and edit this page that's never looked at?!? UOJComm (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
a hook into wikipedia...History of Wikipedia bots...videos would be nice
just an idea
Thank you. Benjamin Franklin 007 (Talk) November 2017 (UTC)