Hoi,
Amir Ladsgroup has developed reports that show differences between the date
of birth and the date of death as known in the English Wikipedia and
Wikidata.
Such differences may be wrong in either Wikidata or Wikipedia. They are the
ones that need attention, they are the ones where sources makes a real
difference.
At this stage Amir is finalising the code. Given that this software can run
repeatedly, the results will change when the software l earns about changes
in either Wikidata or Wikipedia.
One practical question is where should these reports be located. It can be
in both Wikipedia and Wikidata. It is likely that many similar reports
reporting on different statements will become available.
Thanks,
GerardM
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Ladsgroup/Birth_date_report/Conflict_wit…https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Ladsgroup/Death_date_report/Conflict_wit…http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/05/wikipedia-vs-wikidata-qualitativ…
Hey guys,
I'm fairly new to Pywikipedia and would like to be a volunteering developer
at Pywikibot. I do have programming background in Java and C++. I recently
started learning python. I'm pretty much open to working with anyone that
needs help with their bots. Please send me back an email if I can be of any
help. Thank you so much!
RN
Great that someone takes care of the coding guidelines. I have no problem with all of the naming conventions and tests, but I would like to change the documentation part.
Sphinx can generate really good docs from the source code and you only need to change source code, and then we could generate and host the docs on the labs server. If we require to update mediawiki.org, we wont ever reach sync between code and documentation. I propose to remove the documentation on mediawiki and only use sphinx for docs, but everywhere.
Regards
I after with 2+3 but the first part isn't such trivial as it look on the first time. some thoughts to that issue:
Code should not contain debugging code lines except it is explicit made for debugging. This means such code lines should be removed before committing. Code testing should be done by the test suite.
In some cases when code parts of some option or methods or other behaviour is broken than these parts should be commented out during a pre-fix, monkey patch or q&d hack as 1st step, code because the history is accessible in a simple way with blame/annotate the code, otherwise these debugging hints are lost.
If the solution needs a long time the commented code may be remove if and only if that parts are kept track at bugzilla script for script.
I am strictly stains just deleting those comments except the fix could be done with it or the hidden code is trivial.
Regards
xqt
----- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -----
Von: Amir Ladsgroup
Gesendet: 09.05.2014 19:44
An: Pywikipedia discussion list
Betreff: [Pywikipedia-l] Guideline for codes of PWB
Hello,
As a discussion we had in Hackathon today, we concluded there is a need for guideline for our codes (something like WP:MoS for codes)
there is already this but it's not for us and we can use it though
Some things I suggest to add to the guideline in the future:
1- Don't use commented out codes
2- use "bot" instead of "robot" in naming and documentation
3- Don't use \t (tab character) in codes
What do you think about this? if you agree I'll start
Best
--
Amir
Hello!
I wanted to consult with you whether framework has scripts for unlinking
non-existent files: I know about commons-delinker but it works in online
mode and doesn't work on files deleted before start of the script.
So, are there any ready methods/scripts to do this task? Ru.wiki has about
4000+ files with red links to files and such a bot would be really
helpful...
Thanks,
rubin
Hello,
In case you weren't already aware, there's a RfC[1] on switching the
WMF's project management tools (Bugzilla, Gerrit, etc.) to use
Phabricator, which would be one consolidated tool for both bug tracking
and code review. Feel free to leave comments if you have any!
[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Phabricator
-- Legoktm
Hello,
I've created a ohloh project to get stats about all those bots and
scripts, often based on PWB, that can be found around. For now I added
50. https://www.ohloh.net/p/wikibots
Please add yours, or those you know of! It only takes a couple clicks.
https://www.ohloh.net/p/wikibots/enlistments/new
I know that publishing and listing your code is boring, but the
incentive here is that you get pretty graphs. :)
Nemo
Hi all.
I found this notice on User:MiszaBot III page [1]
*All archiving tasks which used to be performed by the MiszaBots are now
performed by lowercase sigmabot III
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lowercase_sigmabot_III> without the
need to change the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} configuration. The actual
MiszaBots are neither functioning nor expected to become functional.*
And on Lowercase_sigmabot_III page I found:
*This bot was created to replace MiszaBots
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MiszaBot> after the latter stopped
working and uses an identical configuration syntax.*
Few questions:
1) I guess that MiszaBot III was using archivebot.py (his name is in the
list of contributors). Is that right?
2) does the statement above implies in some way that archivebot.py has
flaws, which has been fixed by sigmabot III (the code in his/her page is
different from archivebot.py)? Or the latter just chose another
implementation for other reasons?
Can someone shed some light?
Thanks
Mpaa
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MiszaBot_III
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lowercase_sigmabot_III