Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Stuff.co.nz)   Think you're pretty prolific after finally finishing your Master's thesis? Well, this guy has written 8.5% of Wikipedia   (stuff.co.nz) divider line 35
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

2347 clicks; posted to Geek » on 16 Jul 2014 at 8:38 AM (44 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



35 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-07-16 05:46:26 AM  
Hmm, not as fat -- though still every bit as repulsive -- as I imagined him.
 
2014-07-16 05:49:37 AM  

dookdookdook: Hmm, not as fat -- though still every bit as repulsive -- as I imagined him.


He's not a writer, he's a coder.

He made a bot that automatically compiles articles.
 
2014-07-16 08:39:47 AM  
Minor from Broadmoor?
 
2014-07-16 08:46:55 AM  
i bet he gets tons of ass.
 
2014-07-16 08:55:45 AM  
Bots may also be writing the journalist out of the future of journalism.

If you can be replaced by a bot, you deserve to be replaced by a bot.
 
2014-07-16 09:13:40 AM  

Quantumbunny: Bots may also be writing the journalist out of the future of journalism.

If you can be replaced by a bot, you deserve to be replaced by a bot.


Be bee boop.
Begin Quantumbunny routine

If you can be replaced by a bto, you deserve to be replaced by a bot.

End routine.
Bee booooop.


---Re-engaging manual typing---

Hmm, the bot made a typo. Looks like you're safe... for now.

/do the sound effects in your head. He also talks like a robot.

One day the politics tab will overflow and all of Fark will be nothing but automated bots insulting each other.
 
2014-07-16 09:15:04 AM  

Quantumbunny: Bots may also be writing the journalist out of the future of journalism.

If you can be replaced by a bot, you deserve to be replaced by a bot.


Not necessarily. Sure, for boring mechanical task specific high accuracy situations, yes. Humans can't make CPU cores with their hands, so it's okay for a robot.

But anything that requires critical thinking shouldn't be replaced by a robot just because they can perform a specific task well. What happens when the unknown shows his head? The robot will get stumped. What if there's an ethical decision involved? Robots make highly effective killers, but you don't want them to decide on who to pull the trigger.

Not to mention the logical conclusion of your statement is the extermination of the human race.
 
2014-07-16 09:16:20 AM  

Slaxl: Quantumbunny: Bots may also be writing the journalist out of the future of journalism.

If you can be replaced by a bot, you deserve to be replaced by a bot.

Be bee boop.
Begin Quantumbunny routine

If you can be replaced by a bto, you deserve to be replaced by a bot.

End routine.
Bee booooop.


---Re-engaging manual typing---

Hmm, the bot made a typo. Looks like you're safe... for now.

/do the sound effects in your head. He also talks like a robot.

One day the politics tab will overflow and all of Fark will be nothing but automated bots insulting each other.


I thought about that 10-year-old Civ 1 game where 3 civs were throwing nukes at each other while the world slowly went to hell
 
2014-07-16 09:17:24 AM  

rocky_howard: Not to mention the logical conclusion of your statement is the extermination of the human race.


Extermination is a pretty strong word. I prefer to think of it as a "cleansing".
 
2014-07-16 09:24:21 AM  
I'm pretty sure finishing a master's thesis is the opposite of prolific. Put me off writing for life. Oh, and go fark yourself with Strunk and White's horrid little book, my dear, worthless external reader.
 
2014-07-16 09:25:47 AM  

Nurglitch: I'm pretty sure finishing a master's thesis is the opposite of prolific. Put me off writing for life. Oh, and go fark yourself with Strunk and White's horrid little book, my dear, worthless external reader.


pretty much this.  I used to write heavily.  Now, I can barely be bothered to finish typ
 
2014-07-16 09:44:21 AM  
I'm confident that my master's thesis had better, more thorough citations.
 
2014-07-16 10:02:57 AM  

rocky_howard: Quantumbunny: Bots may also be writing the journalist out of the future of journalism.

If you can be replaced by a bot, you deserve to be replaced by a bot.

Not necessarily. Sure, for boring mechanical task specific high accuracy situations, yes. Humans can't make CPU cores with their hands, so it's okay for a robot.

But anything that requires critical thinking shouldn't be replaced by a robot just because they can perform a specific task well. What happens when the unknown shows his head? The robot will get stumped. What if there's an ethical decision involved? Robots make highly effective killers, but you don't want them to decide on who to pull the trigger.

Not to mention the logical conclusion of your statement is the extermination of the human race.


If a bot can adequately replace a writer... that writer was crap. Bots have no prosaic skill. If all you are capable of composing as a "journalist" is an "article" made of simple combined facts into paragraph broken sentences, and you can be replaced without the public noticing, you sucked at your profession. A good writer cannot be adequately replaced by a bot.
 
2014-07-16 10:15:59 AM  
Stubs are not content, they are canned Google searches. This guy hasn't done jack.
 
2014-07-16 10:17:42 AM  

thornhill: I'm confident that my master's thesis had better, more thorough citations.


Citation needed
 
2014-07-16 10:23:29 AM  
8.5% which is about how wrong wiki is, is this just a coincidence?
 
2014-07-16 10:28:16 AM  

Quantumbunny: Bots may also be writing the journalist out of the future of journalism.

If you can be replaced by a bot, you deserve to be replaced by a bot.


The funny thing is how we now have bots generating most financial news automatically from raw data, then different bots scrape those sites to make trading decisions.
 
2014-07-16 10:30:48 AM  
His code has written 8.5% of Wikipedia.
 
2014-07-16 10:32:46 AM  
Using databases to automatically create Wikipedia articles is a somewhat commendable idea.

Though in practice it may resemble masturbatory excess. Luckily this guy is doing it only in the Swedish Wikipedia and for some Philippine languages.

The problem with scanning a database to generate text that gets turned into Wikipedia articles is what happens when the database changes? You need Wikipedia to be rather tightly integrated with the DB to notice changes and propagate them. I would presume the WikiSpecies project (http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) is aware of this issue and I don't know why this Swede is not working within that project.

Lets look at one of his very recent stubs.
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotomurus_cibus
This seems to be generated from the Integrated Taxonomic Information System DB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Taxonomic_Information_System )
from the entry:
http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&sea rc h_value=99254

However in the stub he doesn't even mention the ITIS "taxonomic serial number" 99254 but instead links to a species name search:  http://www.catalogueoflife.org/annual-checklist/2011/search/all/key/i s otomurus+cibus/match/1

Yes he can generate lots of articles this way if he is not interested in linking DBs or handling the update problem.
 
2014-07-16 10:35:07 AM  

rocky_howard: Quantumbunny: Bots may also be writing the journalist out of the future of journalism.

If you can be replaced by a bot, you deserve to be replaced by a bot.

Not necessarily. Sure, for boring mechanical task specific high accuracy situations, yes. Humans can't make CPU cores with their hands, so it's okay for a robot.

But anything that requires critical thinking shouldn't be replaced by a robot just because they can perform a specific task well. What happens when the unknown shows his head? The robot will get stumped. What if there's an ethical decision involved? Robots make highly effective killers, but you don't want them to decide on who to pull the trigger.

Not to mention the logical conclusion of your statement is the extermination of the human race.


The thing is, ethical decision making is just a a algorithmically based as any other decision-making so you could totally program a robot to make ethical decisions.

And when you realize that the people getting the guns instead of the robot are people and it perfectly ethical decision-makers, I find it difficult to argue that it is necessarily better to have a human than a robot pulling the trigger. I'm not making the case that the reverse is better either, but for every "what if they misidentify a target or don't know how to handle a complex situation and wind up killing someone who needn't have died" I can link to an article about a police officer shooting a kid with a toy gun.

Humans are fallible, too. That's not restricted to robots and it may very well eventually be possible to have robots that consistently make better decisions in those situations that humans do.
 
2014-07-16 10:36:32 AM  

Skirl Hutsenreiter: Quantumbunny: Bots may also be writing the journalist out of the future of journalism.

If you can be replaced by a bot, you deserve to be replaced by a bot.

The funny thing is how we now have bots generating most financial news automatically from raw data, then different bots scrape those sites to make trading decisions.


I'm looking forward to the day humanity dies out and the economy keeps on chugging along without us.
 
2014-07-16 10:48:35 AM  

Delta1212: rocky_howard: Quantumbunny: Bots may also be writing the journalist out of the future of journalism.

If you can be replaced by a bot, you deserve to be replaced by a bot.

Not necessarily. Sure, for boring mechanical task specific high accuracy situations, yes. Humans can't make CPU cores with their hands, so it's okay for a robot.

But anything that requires critical thinking shouldn't be replaced by a robot just because they can perform a specific task well. What happens when the unknown shows his head? The robot will get stumped. What if there's an ethical decision involved? Robots make highly effective killers, but you don't want them to decide on who to pull the trigger.

Not to mention the logical conclusion of your statement is the extermination of the human race.

The thing is, ethical decision making is just a a algorithmically based as any other decision-making so you could totally program a robot to make ethical decisions.

And when you realize that the people getting the guns instead of the robot are people and it perfectly ethical decision-makers, I find it difficult to argue that it is necessarily better to have a human than a robot pulling the trigger. I'm not making the case that the reverse is better either, but for every "what if they misidentify a target or don't know how to handle a complex situation and wind up killing someone who needn't have died" I can link to an article about a police officer shooting a kid with a toy gun.

Humans are fallible, too. That's not restricted to robots and it may very well eventually be possible to have robots that consistently make better decisions in those situations that humans do.


Robots are fallible too. To err is human; to really screw things up you need an algorithm.
 
2014-07-16 11:11:09 AM  

Quantumbunny: If a bot can adequately replace a writer... that writer was crap.


Or it could be that boilerplate material can be adequately written using a standard template that a software program can fill out.
 
2014-07-16 12:48:02 PM  

Yay!

No, seriously, this makes me happy as hell. Why? Because, as a technical writer, my skills become even more valuable (and expensive.)

We've had 'bots formatting and re-assembling content in my world for some time now. Reflection & introspection, translation, and so on, has generated much (but not all, and that's important) of the API reference content you see these days in software products. It used to be that we had to create that framework by hand - hand-writing syntax declarations, parameter declarations, standardized descriptions for objects and members, and so on. Companies spent years developing tools that could go through the external representations of code and generate boilerplate-driven documentation frameworks, a mechanical effort originally touted as a cost saver and then pushed as the replacement for content engineering professionals.

Companies thought that mechanical effort was the sum total of "technical documentation" for their products, and rolled it out - only to discover that, without the additional information technical writers added in the process, their product docs were friggin' useless, no more than what you'd get from any object browser. Without that extra content, their customers get angry, their support costs rise dramatically, and their market adoption goes flat.

Companies are once again hiring content engineering professionals, especially programmer/writers, because they realize that, yes, the 'bot can, indeed, shorten the time needed during the writing cycle by providing a consistent content framework, but it can't replace the conceptual discussions, business task discussions, remarks, code snippets and samples, and holistic views that content engineering professionals provide within such content frameworks.

So, yeah, I'm happy to see shiatty, auto-generated framework masquerading as "content" hitting Wikipedia, because it highlights what I, and folks like myself, bring to the table in content engineering.
 
2014-07-16 12:53:02 PM  
Goddamned botter. He's probably a spawn camper too.
 
2014-07-16 01:47:11 PM  

FormlessOne: Yay!No, seriously, this makes me happy as hell. Why? Because, as a technical writer, my skills become even more valuable (and expensive.)

We've had 'bots formatting and re-assembling content in my world for some time now. Reflection & introspection, translation, and so on, has generated much (but not all, and that's important) of the API reference content you see these days in software products. It used to be that we had to create that framework by hand - hand-writing syntax declarations, parameter declarations, standardized descriptions for objects and members, and so on. Companies spent years developing tools that could go through the external representations of code and generate boilerplate-driven documentation frameworks, a mechanical effort originally touted as a cost saver and then pushed as the replacement for content engineering professionals.

Companies thought that mechanical effort was the sum total of "technical documentation" for their products, and rolled it out - only to discover that, without the additional information technical writers added in the process, their product docs were friggin' useless, no more than what you'd get from any object browser. Without that extra content, their customers get angry, their support costs rise dramatically, and their market adoption goes flat.

Companies are once again hiring content engineering professionals, especially programmer/writers, because they realize that, yes, the 'bot can, indeed, shorten the time needed during the writing cycle by providing a consistent content framework, but it can't replace the conceptual discussions, business task discussions, remarks, code snippets and samples, and holistic views that content engineering professionals provide within such content frameworks.

So, yeah, I'm happy to see shiatty, auto-generated framework masquerading as "content" hitting Wikipedia, because it highlights what I, and folks like myself, bring to the table in content engineering.


"Content engineering." I like that. I'mma use it in my CV.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-07-16 02:04:42 PM  
To date, Johansson has managed to create a stub for every known bird species in the world. He has also covered every form of fungus.

I hate these bots. The essentially empty pages they create are worse than useless. Because wikipedia et al. get high page rank they distract from the limited amount of genuine information available on the internet. If I google some obscure species I get about 10 different inventory sites with no meaningful information. At best. The rest of the time I get wrong information because somebody seeded the bot with a statement about a particular species that does not apply to the other thousand in the family.
 
2014-07-16 06:18:15 PM  
Did he write  this article too?
 
2014-07-16 07:39:45 PM  

Delta1212: I can link to an article about a police officer shooting a kid with a toy gun.


It would be better if you'd link to articles about police officers shooting kids with real guns. No one cares if a kid get shot by a toy gun.
 
2014-07-16 09:05:44 PM  

Nurglitch: "Content engineering." I like that. I'mma use it in my CV.


Coined it for my boss in my last FTE gig - he needed a way to get his managers and VPs to understand that what we do isn't "writing", any more than what software developers do is "coding." It works, it encompasses our jobs far more than "technical writing" does, and it covers the in-betweeners, like myself, that straddle the software development and technical communications domains.

Feel free to circulate it. For my purposes, I use it to cover writers, editors, trainers, content-oriented UA folks, community managers, and so on - anyone that generates, manipulates, or disseminates content.
 
2014-07-16 09:27:25 PM  

Skirl Hutsenreiter: Quantumbunny: Bots may also be writing the journalist out of the future of journalism.

If you can be replaced by a bot, you deserve to be replaced by a bot.

The funny thing is how we now have bots generating most financial news automatically from raw data, then different bots scrape those sites to make trading decisions.


*starts whistling The Sorcerer's Apprentice, puts hands in pockets, saunters out of room*
 
2014-07-16 10:23:00 PM  
WHAT THE HELL is on his shoulder?
 
2014-07-17 12:29:39 AM  
Wasn't an even larger percentage of the original Oxford English Dictionary written by a homicidal schizophrenic?

/not kidding.
//too lazy to look up his name on Wiki
//jk....W.C. Minor
 
2014-07-17 12:30:44 AM  
Oops....kudos to Jaicu.
 
2014-07-17 12:52:35 AM  

doglover: dookdookdook: Hmm, not as fat -- though still every bit as repulsive -- as I imagined him.


He's not a writer, he's a coder.

He made a bot that automatically compiles articles.


Coders are supposed to be less fat and geeky than writers?

-Comment posted by Horatiogatesbot vers. 1.12
 
Displayed 35 of 35 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report