On 2/21/07, Parker Peters parkerpeters1002@gmail.com wrote:
Bots are problematic enough as is, we have any number that malfunction or do things based on an ill-considered script already.
The faster you allow them to edit, the faster two bots could conceivably get into a war as well.
I'd agree we should be careful about this -- bots have the potential to be very helpful, but rogue or malfunctioning bots likewise have a potential to do some pretty nasty damage. Not so much to pages; sure, it'll be a chore, but we can revert all of that easily enough. I'd be especially concerned about bots that deal with newer users, and how a buggy bot can influence their first experiences on the wiki.
Always good to watch the bots. Some of them have been going for some time with only a few problems, and could do more with more freedom to edit. Giving out this freedom blindly is probably bad, and I didn't see people proposing we should do that (I think) -- the bots we trust and know, and which could obviously benefit from the boost, though, not sure if I see the harm.
HagermanBot would be my specific example of a bot that doesn't need an artificial limit. Some people have suggested it should wait a little longer before signing (no idea where overall consensus on this is, just pointing out), but even "wait x seconds before signing" is just a delay for each edit, rather than a limit on the overall editing rate.
Bots getting into edit wars? Merf. That'd be bad, but a responsible botop will avoid that problem with a few extra lines of code. It really wouldn't be too difficult. Long-term things like the interwiki bots arguing, that's a little trickier, but a high-speed end-of-the-world botwar isn't something I expect to see any time soon.
Just my take, probably a bit of a ramble. -Luna