So you're saying that because one minor detail in the article's name is irrelevant and most of the rest stands as useful information, it would be more useful to link to a much broader article that actually doesn't answer the question at all?

So now we're still not any smarter as to if it's automated or if there's an admin sitting in a dark room with nothing but water and untoasted toast doing it manually. GJ nerds.

[...] I edit Wikipedia -- there is no reason to change the name because that would be like renaming the article "cat" to "jingle bells" because you linked the wrong article. Besides, why rename it when the right article is already there? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_recognition

[...] I didn't say it was optical at any point. I just pointed him to a relevant article of that describes the technology behind the bot. You really shouldn't be talking to me, you should try talking to the people in Wikipedia to change the article's name. See if they care about it.

[...] "OCR technology" does not exist, "pattern recognition technology" is what you're talking about, and in that sense both PR and OCR exist. And the reason why DCR does not exist is because it isn't called DCR, it is called pattern recognition. I like the way you accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about and then bring the conversation around to "actually I was wrong and it's not optical at all but I'm going to bring it back on you". Next time maybe check that you're not going to say "actually I was wrong" before you make an attack on my technical knowledge in the areas of pattern recognition.

[...] That's because most of the material is gathered from scanners, translated into a digital format before the character recognition part. Still, the article is relevant because there doesn't exist a term "DCR". OCR technology is used for all character recognition, regardless of the source. The technology behind OCR works exactly the same. So yeah, it's not optical, but the article stays relevant. Now GTFO.

[...] Hahaha, you're really funny. It says electronic translation, but it is translation of /optical/ materials. Last time I looked, jpeg images were not stored in light, they were stored in bits and bytes. This is not optical character recognition. That is digital character recognition. I urge you to look up what 'optical' means.

[...] There, I highlighted it for you. It says optical, but it is also used for electronic translation. Can you now please shut up about things you don't know anything about?

[...] "Optical character recognition, usually abbreviated to OCR, is the mechanical or electronic translation of scanned images of handwritten, typewritten or printed text into machine-encoded text." That's not what this is. I repeat, this is not optical.

[...] ... read the first sentence in the article before correcting someone. Geez.

[...] That's something different (this is not optical).