User talk:Erebus555/debate1

I use Wikipedia for fun. I enjoy creating articles and seeing comments put on my talk page saying that it was a good creation or edit. I do not believe that creating a bot to take over all the work to make it quicker and add extra information to make articles more and more detailed, is worthwhile on Wikipedia. What do you other guys think? - (Erebus555 16:19, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Howabout1
I use wikipedia to learn things, and for fun also. I used it for a couple of days and then got hooked. Howabout1 17:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Falcon Kirtaran
I think that bot creation is definately worthwhile. Who likes doing tedious grunt work like copying out the Dewey Decimal system, knowing that it is so uniform a bot could easily do it? However, certain tasks need humans behind them, and no attempt to bot them should ever be made. For example, how can you automate a VfD debate or flagging stubs? Anyway, I like Wikipedia because there's always opportunity for a good debate, and it lets a person do things like remove unneeded and unsightly apostraphies and other vile, habitual grammatical errors that people should be sent back to preschool for. Tongue in cheek, of course. Falcon 00:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

reimelt
I edit Wikipaedia because I enjoy making improvements, small or large, in a free reference work. A bit tautological? Well, there's just something gratifying about seeing copy in need of improvement, and then seeing tangible evidence that you made it better. Whenever I despair of the problems of radically open collaboration (and there are, of course, many) I need only browse the history of most articles to see that the world's "monkeys with typewriters" experiment really does (mainly) represent a process of continuous improvement. (Admittedly, a process replete with a lot of fits and starts.) Also, I know I enjoy browsing to learn about things of which I know nothing, and I figure adding my meager tidbits is only fair reciprocity. Reimelt 23:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)