Hmm, it appears it didn't forward properly last time. Let's try again.
KTC
On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 03:55 +0300, White Cat wrote:
We should require interwiki bot operators to
Know each language they operate their bot so that they can read and memorize each and every bot policy.
Expect them to watch and follow each and every talk page on every wiki. Require them to have 5-10 checks of these talk pages per day.
Wait several years (for the wiki to grow) before getting a bot flag.
Or would that be unreasonable?
Perhaps a unified standard bot policy is needed for mindless tasks like interwiki linking, double redirect fixing and commons delinking.
The interwiki bot policy would set the standard for these mindless tasks. Such a standard would let bot operators to operate more efficiently. Particularly the largest wikis and the smallest wikis are very aloof from such a standard.
Very small wikis often have a mini dictatorship by a few users (not referancing anybody spesific). Such small wikis generally have cooperative people but sometimes the wikis regulars do not understand what interwiki bots and botflags are about and why such are necessary.
Very large wikis often have overly complicated policies. For someone only interested in dealing with mindless bot tasks these pose an unnecessary bureaucracy. Due to the language barrier reading these policies alone can be quite a challenge.
- White Cat
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I do think it's unacceptable that Interwiki bots go in and change the order of interwikis against the agreed-upon orders at each Wiki.
I remember a while back, we agreed on en.wp to order interwiki links by code, and it seems that the bots never cared - ja: always came after nl: rather than after it:. I'm not sure if a different policy has been decided since then, but bots have always been oblivious, it seems.
Mark
2008/5/28 Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info:
Hmm, it appears it didn't forward properly last time. Let's try again.
KTC
On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 03:55 +0300, White Cat wrote:
We should require interwiki bot operators to
Know each language they operate their bot so that they can read and memorize each and every bot policy.
Expect them to watch and follow each and every talk page on every wiki. Require them to have 5-10 checks of these talk pages per day.
Wait several years (for the wiki to grow) before getting a bot flag.
Or would that be unreasonable?
Perhaps a unified standard bot policy is needed for mindless tasks like interwiki linking, double redirect fixing and commons delinking.
The interwiki bot policy would set the standard for these mindless tasks. Such a standard would let bot operators to operate more efficiently. Particularly the largest wikis and the smallest wikis are very aloof from such a standard.
Very small wikis often have a mini dictatorship by a few users (not referancing anybody spesific). Such small wikis generally have cooperative people but sometimes the wikis regulars do not understand what interwiki bots and botflags are about and why such are necessary.
Very large wikis often have overly complicated policies. For someone only interested in dealing with mindless bot tasks these pose an unnecessary bureaucracy. Due to the language barrier reading these policies alone can be quite a challenge.
- White Cat
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Let me add that I think it's ridiculous to use the sorting order of the Roman alphabet for languages that don't use it.
I can appreciate the sentiment of wanting to sort people's languages alphabetically according to the native names for the languages, but there is no scheme for sorting all writing systems, rather, each writing system has its own sorting order. It could very possibly be counterintuitive for a speaker of Hebrew to find "עברית" between H and J, instead they are expecting to find it between samech and peh. I'm guessing that the second thought, when it's not there (because most of the entries are in the Latin alphabet, so they can't look between samech and peh), is to look for it under the "H" for "Hebrew" rather than under the I for "Ivrit", but I could be wrong, this is just an example.
Mark
2008/5/28 Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com:
I do think it's unacceptable that Interwiki bots go in and change the order of interwikis against the agreed-upon orders at each Wiki.
I remember a while back, we agreed on en.wp to order interwiki links by code, and it seems that the bots never cared - ja: always came after nl: rather than after it:. I'm not sure if a different policy has been decided since then, but bots have always been oblivious, it seems.
Mark
2008/5/28 Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info:
Hmm, it appears it didn't forward properly last time. Let's try again.
KTC
On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 03:55 +0300, White Cat wrote:
We should require interwiki bot operators to
Know each language they operate their bot so that they can read and memorize each and every bot policy.
Expect them to watch and follow each and every talk page on every wiki. Require them to have 5-10 checks of these talk pages per day.
Wait several years (for the wiki to grow) before getting a bot flag.
Or would that be unreasonable?
Perhaps a unified standard bot policy is needed for mindless tasks like interwiki linking, double redirect fixing and commons delinking.
The interwiki bot policy would set the standard for these mindless tasks. Such a standard would let bot operators to operate more efficiently. Particularly the largest wikis and the smallest wikis are very aloof from such a standard.
Very small wikis often have a mini dictatorship by a few users (not referancing anybody spesific). Such small wikis generally have cooperative people but sometimes the wikis regulars do not understand what interwiki bots and botflags are about and why such are necessary.
Very large wikis often have overly complicated policies. For someone only interested in dealing with mindless bot tasks these pose an unnecessary bureaucracy. Due to the language barrier reading these policies alone can be quite a challenge.
- White Cat
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Mark Williamson wrote:
Let me add that I think it's ridiculous to use the sorting order of the Roman alphabet for languages that don't use it.
I can appreciate the sentiment of wanting to sort people's languages alphabetically according to the native names for the languages, but there is no scheme for sorting all writing systems, rather, each writing system has its own sorting order. It could very possibly be counterintuitive for a speaker of Hebrew to find "עברית" between H and J, instead they are expecting to find it between samech and peh. I'm guessing that the second thought, when it's not there (because most of the entries are in the Latin alphabet, so they can't look between samech and peh), is to look for it under the "H" for "Hebrew" rather than under the I for "Ivrit", but I could be wrong, this is just an example.
Mark
2008/5/28 Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com:
I do think it's unacceptable that Interwiki bots go in and change the order of interwikis against the agreed-upon orders at each Wiki.
I remember a while back, we agreed on en.wp to order interwiki links by code, and it seems that the bots never cared - ja: always came after nl: rather than after it:. I'm not sure if a different policy has been decided since then, but bots have always been oblivious, it seems.
Mark
2008/5/28 Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info:
Hmm, it appears it didn't forward properly last time. Let's try again.
KTC
On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 03:55 +0300, White Cat wrote:
We should require interwiki bot operators to
Know each language they operate their bot so that they can read and memorize each and every bot policy.
Expect them to watch and follow each and every talk page on every wiki. Require them to have 5-10 checks of these talk pages per day.
Wait several years (for the wiki to grow) before getting a bot flag.
Or would that be unreasonable?
Perhaps a unified standard bot policy is needed for mindless tasks like interwiki linking, double redirect fixing and commons delinking.
The interwiki bot policy would set the standard for these mindless tasks. Such a standard would let bot operators to operate more efficiently. Particularly the largest wikis and the smallest wikis are very aloof from such a standard.
Very small wikis often have a mini dictatorship by a few users (not referancing anybody spesific). Such small wikis generally have cooperative people but sometimes the wikis regulars do not understand what interwiki bots and botflags are about and why such are necessary.
Very large wikis often have overly complicated policies. For someone only interested in dealing with mindless bot tasks these pose an unnecessary bureaucracy. Due to the language barrier reading these policies alone can be quite a challenge.
- White Cat
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
We could just not get wrapped around the axle about sorting interwiki links. I don't think it is a large issue. I can be convinced otherwise however.
Best, Jon
I too prefer the order of the interwiki links to be alphabetical by the language codes. This makes it easier to find interwiki's. Sometimes for a new article I take over the interwiki's from en.WP, also then it is better to have them in the same order they will have in the other WP. Ziko
2008/5/28 Jon scream@datascreamer.com:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Mark Williamson wrote:
Let me add that I think it's ridiculous to use the sorting order of the Roman alphabet for languages that don't use it.
I can appreciate the sentiment of wanting to sort people's languages alphabetically according to the native names for the languages, but there is no scheme for sorting all writing systems, rather, each writing system has its own sorting order. It could very possibly be counterintuitive for a speaker of Hebrew to find "עברית" between H and J, instead they are expecting to find it between samech and peh. I'm guessing that the second thought, when it's not there (because most of the entries are in the Latin alphabet, so they can't look between samech and peh), is to look for it under the "H" for "Hebrew" rather than under the I for "Ivrit", but I could be wrong, this is just an example.
Mark
2008/5/28 Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com:
I do think it's unacceptable that Interwiki bots go in and change the order of interwikis against the agreed-upon orders at each Wiki.
I remember a while back, we agreed on en.wp to order interwiki links by code, and it seems that the bots never cared - ja: always came after nl: rather than after it:. I'm not sure if a different policy has been decided since then, but bots have always been oblivious, it seems.
Mark
2008/5/28 Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info:
Hmm, it appears it didn't forward properly last time. Let's try again.
KTC
On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 03:55 +0300, White Cat wrote:
We should require interwiki bot operators to
Know each language they operate their bot so that they can read and memorize each and every bot policy.
Expect them to watch and follow each and every talk page on every wiki. Require them to have 5-10 checks of these talk pages per day.
Wait several years (for the wiki to grow) before getting a bot flag.
Or would that be unreasonable?
Perhaps a unified standard bot policy is needed for mindless tasks like interwiki linking, double redirect fixing and commons delinking.
The interwiki bot policy would set the standard for these mindless tasks. Such a standard would let bot operators to operate more efficiently. Particularly the largest wikis and the smallest wikis are very aloof from such a standard.
Very small wikis often have a mini dictatorship by a few users (not referancing anybody spesific). Such small wikis generally have cooperative people but sometimes the wikis regulars do not understand what interwiki bots and botflags are about and why such are necessary.
Very large wikis often have overly complicated policies. For someone only interested in dealing with mindless bot tasks these pose an unnecessary bureaucracy. Due to the language barrier reading these policies alone can be quite a challenge.
- White Cat
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
We could just not get wrapped around the axle about sorting interwiki links. I don't think it is a large issue. I can be convinced otherwise however.
Best, Jon -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFIPcqk6+ro8Pm1AtURAicNAJ0WG0LOEhtvV7yoZDRzZKrlra5kWACfe3wx 2H57fRQTpVuH07d7q9kUaac= =7WNy -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 6:37 AM, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.com wrote:
I too prefer the order of the interwiki links to be alphabetical by the language codes. This makes it easier to find interwiki's. Sometimes for a new article I take over the interwiki's from en.WP, also then it is better to have them in the same order they will have in the other WP. Ziko
Me too, just becase it is easy to place, but personally I don't care the other prefer the other way. Japanese may prefer kana (50-on) order (it is an phonetic order so a bit different from "alphabetical" order of the heading letter). Each wiki may know their reader at most: why should we create a global standard which may not be the best for every wiki?
2008/5/28 Jon scream@datascreamer.com:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Mark Williamson wrote:
Let me add that I think it's ridiculous to use the sorting order of the Roman alphabet for languages that don't use it.
I can appreciate the sentiment of wanting to sort people's languages alphabetically according to the native names for the languages, but there is no scheme for sorting all writing systems, rather, each writing system has its own sorting order. It could very possibly be counterintuitive for a speaker of Hebrew to find "עברית" between H and J, instead they are expecting to find it between samech and peh. I'm guessing that the second thought, when it's not there (because most of the entries are in the Latin alphabet, so they can't look between samech and peh), is to look for it under the "H" for "Hebrew" rather than under the I for "Ivrit", but I could be wrong, this is just an example.
Mark
2008/5/28 Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com:
I do think it's unacceptable that Interwiki bots go in and change the order of interwikis against the agreed-upon orders at each Wiki.
I remember a while back, we agreed on en.wp to order interwiki links by code, and it seems that the bots never cared - ja: always came after nl: rather than after it:. I'm not sure if a different policy has been decided since then, but bots have always been oblivious, it seems.
Mark
2008/5/28 Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info:
Hmm, it appears it didn't forward properly last time. Let's try again.
KTC
On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 03:55 +0300, White Cat wrote:
We should require interwiki bot operators to
Know each language they operate their bot so that they can read and memorize each and every bot policy.
Expect them to watch and follow each and every talk page on every wiki. Require them to have 5-10 checks of these talk pages per day.
Wait several years (for the wiki to grow) before getting a bot flag.
Or would that be unreasonable?
Perhaps a unified standard bot policy is needed for mindless tasks like interwiki linking, double redirect fixing and commons delinking.
The interwiki bot policy would set the standard for these mindless tasks. Such a standard would let bot operators to operate more efficiently. Particularly the largest wikis and the smallest wikis are very aloof from such a standard.
Very small wikis often have a mini dictatorship by a few users (not referancing anybody spesific). Such small wikis generally have cooperative people but sometimes the wikis regulars do not understand what interwiki bots and botflags are about and why such are necessary.
Very large wikis often have overly complicated policies. For someone only interested in dealing with mindless bot tasks these pose an unnecessary bureaucracy. Due to the language barrier reading these policies alone can be quite a challenge.
- White Cat
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
We could just not get wrapped around the axle about sorting interwiki links. I don't think it is a large issue. I can be convinced otherwise however.
Best, Jon -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFIPcqk6+ro8Pm1AtURAicNAJ0WG0LOEhtvV7yoZDRzZKrlra5kWACfe3wx 2H57fRQTpVuH07d7q9kUaac= =7WNy -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Like I said what you are saying is an issue to be sorted out with the developers of interwiki.py at the pywikipediabot bugzilla. You can link to the discussion at pywikipediabot bugzilla. What ja.wikipedia or en.wikipedia or tr.wikipedia agrees on a discrete sub page in a language the bot operator does not know is not very helpful. Via SVN that change can be applied to each and every running instance of interwiki.py.
The idea behind this proposal is to set a standard so both communities and bot operators take a deep breath from the bureaucracy and instead focus on the actual work.
Any unnecessary restrictions should be lifted.
- White Cat
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:45 AM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 6:37 AM, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.com wrote:
I too prefer the order of the interwiki links to be alphabetical by the language codes. This makes it easier to find interwiki's. Sometimes for a new article I take over the interwiki's from en.WP, also then it is better to have them in the same order they will have in the other WP. Ziko
Me too, just becase it is easy to place, but personally I don't care the other prefer the other way. Japanese may prefer kana (50-on) order (it is an phonetic order so a bit different from "alphabetical" order of the heading letter). Each wiki may know their reader at most: why should we create a global standard which may not be the best for every wiki?
2008/5/28 Jon scream@datascreamer.com:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Mark Williamson wrote:
Let me add that I think it's ridiculous to use the sorting order of the Roman alphabet for languages that don't use it.
I can appreciate the sentiment of wanting to sort people's languages alphabetically according to the native names for the languages, but there is no scheme for sorting all writing systems, rather, each writing system has its own sorting order. It could very possibly be counterintuitive for a speaker of Hebrew to find "עברית" between H and J, instead they are expecting to find it between samech and peh. I'm guessing that the second thought, when it's not there (because most of the entries are in the Latin alphabet, so they can't look between samech and peh), is to look for it under the "H" for "Hebrew" rather than under the I for "Ivrit", but I could be wrong, this is just an example.
Mark
2008/5/28 Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com:
I do think it's unacceptable that Interwiki bots go in and change the order of interwikis against the agreed-upon orders at each Wiki.
I remember a while back, we agreed on en.wp to order interwiki links by code, and it seems that the bots never cared - ja: always came after nl: rather than after it:. I'm not sure if a different policy has been decided since then, but bots have always been oblivious, it seems.
Mark
2008/5/28 Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info:
Hmm, it appears it didn't forward properly last time. Let's try
again.
KTC
On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 03:55 +0300, White Cat wrote: > We should require interwiki bot operators to > > Know each language they operate their bot so that they can read and
memorize
> each and every bot policy. > > Expect them to watch and follow each and every talk page on every
wiki.
> Require them to have 5-10 checks of these talk pages per day. > > Wait several years (for the wiki to grow) before getting a bot flag. > > Or would that be unreasonable? > > Perhaps a unified standard bot policy is needed for mindless tasks
like
> interwiki linking, double redirect fixing and commons delinking. > > The interwiki bot policy would set the standard for these mindless
tasks.
> Such a standard would let bot operators to operate more efficiently. > Particularly the largest wikis and the smallest wikis are very aloof
from
> such a standard. > > Very small wikis often have a mini dictatorship by a few users (not > referancing anybody spesific). Such small wikis generally have
cooperative
> people but sometimes the wikis regulars do not understand what
interwiki
> bots and botflags are about and why such are necessary. > > Very large wikis often have overly complicated policies. For someone
only
> interested in dealing with mindless bot tasks these pose an
unnecessary
> bureaucracy. Due to the language barrier reading these policies
alone can be
> quite a challenge. > > - White Cat > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
We could just not get wrapped around the axle about sorting interwiki links. I don't think it is a large issue. I can be convinced otherwise however.
Best, Jon -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFIPcqk6+ro8Pm1AtURAicNAJ0WG0LOEhtvV7yoZDRzZKrlra5kWACfe3wx 2H57fRQTpVuH07d7q9kUaac= =7WNy -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Ziko van Dijk NL-Silvolde _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
We do have a bot policy:
[[:meta:Bot policy]]
It is implemented in all small wikipedias I am active. Bot owners (in theory) leave a request at a special bot page, if there are no objections within a reasonable time (a week or so), the steward grants the bot status. Once I had to report on meta and actually ask stewards to grant the bot flag for some of the old requests on os.wp.
You may be sure the small wikis suffer much more when a bot can not get the status since the list of recent changes becomes unusable - this is for instance what is right now happening with the newly created wikis.
Cheers Yaroslav
Yaroslav M. Blanter pisze:
We do have a bot policy:
[[:meta:Bot policy]]
It is implemented in all small wikipedias I am active. Bot owners (in theory) leave a request at a special bot page, if there are no objections within a reasonable time (a week or so), the steward grants the bot status. Once I had to report on meta and actually ask stewards to grant the bot flag for some of the old requests on os.wp.
You may be sure the small wikis suffer much more when a bot can not get the status since the list of recent changes becomes unusable - this is for instance what is right now happening with the newly created wikis.
Cheers Yaroslav
the problem is in some wiki you get rejection because "the bot is involved in to few projects". Hmm.. how ca it be involved more if one cannot apply?
masti
I have seen many wikis do *not* grant bot flag because ... "there are far too many bots with that flag"/"they do not feel they need a bot" ... they are inactive (as in no one edits the wiki regularly aside from existing bots and stewards who only remove spam) ... there is something minor on the local bot policy that is in the way. ... the bureaucrat / the community (made out of fewer than five local people for example) says so
Wikis should grant interwiki bots bot flags because ... each interwiki bot generally only operates from a certain wiki. This means the bots "input" is all pages on a spesific wiki. For example a bot operating off of ja.wikipedia would check if all wikis link to the pages on ja.wikipedia and *update non-ja.wikipedias* if they lack the necessary link *to* ja.wikipedia ... inactive wikis do need to get updated because other wikis are still active. Waiting a week or more for a bot flag there or even put a request is a waste of time. A list of inactive wikis should be compiled and and the interwiki bot policy should be applied by default. Since no soul is active on inactive wikis, there is no one to complain ... local personal preferences should only matter to local users. A "foreigner" who is only there to deal with mindless automated tasks should not deal with cosmetic issues. You would need to translate the local bot policy to each and every used language otherwise. Bot flags should not be made a big deal. ... on very very small communities (made out of fewer than five local people for example) people who allow/disallow a bot base this decision on subjective reasons rather than objective ones. Smaller communities do not understand that bots can break down due to various reasons. It is the bot operators responsibility to clean after the bot, there is no question about that. But hard blocking the bot or denying it a flag because it broke once or twice isn't objective.
----
It should not be necessary to "test" bots that use standard code for standard mindless tasks such as interwiki linking double redirect fixing or commons delinking. If a spesific python code works properly on one computer there is no reason why it shouldn't properly work on another computer.
Granting of the bot flag for tasks like interwiki linking, double redirect fixing, commons delinking should not be based on a vote.
- White Cat
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 1:20 AM, masti mst@warszawa.pl.eu.org wrote:
Yaroslav M. Blanter pisze:
We do have a bot policy:
[[:meta:Bot policy]]
It is implemented in all small wikipedias I am active. Bot owners (in theory) leave a request at a special bot page, if there are no objections within a reasonable time (a week or so), the steward grants the bot status. Once I had to report on meta and actually ask stewards to grant the bot flag for some of the old requests on os.wp.
You may be sure the small wikis suffer much more when a bot can not get the status since the list of recent changes becomes unusable - this is
for
instance what is right now happening with the newly created wikis.
Cheers Yaroslav
the problem is in some wiki you get rejection because "the bot is involved in to few projects". Hmm.. how ca it be involved more if one cannot apply?
masti
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 11:50 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
We do have a bot policy:
[[:meta:Bot policy]]
It is implemented in all small wikipedias I am active. Bot owners (in theory) leave a request at a special bot page, if there are no objections within a reasonable time (a week or so), the steward grants the bot status. Once I had to report on meta and actually ask stewards to grant the bot flag for some of the old requests on os.wp.
You may be sure the small wikis suffer much more when a bot can not get the status since the list of recent changes becomes unusable - this is for instance what is right now happening with the newly created wikis.
This is one of the most problematic issues: Asking for bot flag on ~250 projects is really painful. There should be one place for asking the bot flag for interwiki bots.
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 11:51 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
This is one of the most problematic issues: Asking for bot flag on ~250 projects is really painful. There should be one place for asking the bot flag for interwiki bots.
I believe this is technically possible with global groups. Certainly this needs to come to some discussion on Meta and here, because of the issues with local communities that will inevitably occur.
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 7:55 AM, Ryan wiki.ral315@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 11:51 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
This is one of the most problematic issues: Asking for bot flag on ~250 projects is really painful. There should be one place for asking the bot flag for interwiki bots.
I believe this is technically possible with global groups. Certainly this needs to come to some discussion on Meta and here, because of the issues with local communities that will inevitably occur.
Communities may elect global bot-only "bureaucrats" (which would be able to give and to remove bot flags). Let's say, one per project which already has a bureaucrat, as well as a person has to be a present or former bureaucrat there (some projects have the rule that CU may not be a bureaucrat, too; and, usually, CUs are recruited from bureaucrats).
Hoi, Sorry there are something like 700+ projects .. the current number of Wikipedias is bigger then what is currently shown on meta's list of Wikipedias it must be over 260+ now. Maybe someone can update this list ? Thanks, Gerard
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 5:51 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 11:50 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
We do have a bot policy:
[[:meta:Bot policy]]
It is implemented in all small wikipedias I am active. Bot owners (in theory) leave a request at a special bot page, if there are no objections within a reasonable time (a week or so), the steward grants the bot status. Once I had to report on meta and actually ask stewards to grant the bot flag for some of the old requests on os.wp.
You may be sure the small wikis suffer much more when a bot can not get the status since the list of recent changes becomes unusable - this is
for
instance what is right now happening with the newly created wikis.
This is one of the most problematic issues: Asking for bot flag on ~250 projects is really painful. There should be one place for asking the bot flag for interwiki bots.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 8:02 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Sorry there are something like 700+ projects .. the current number of Wikipedias is bigger then what is currently shown on meta's list of Wikipedias it must be over 260+ now. Maybe someone can update this list ?
So, ~260; I am not so well introduced in the number of Wikipedias.
I am using the number of Wikipedias because this is the biggest number for *one* interwiki bot and the most often purpose of them. Interwikis are used between the projects of the same type. And maybe only a couple of persons (if there is a such person at all) have interwiki bots all over the Wikimedia projects.
--- On Wed, 5/28/08, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
From: Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [WikiEN-l] Bot policy for all wikis To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, May 28, 2008, 10:51 PM On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 11:50 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
We do have a bot policy:
[[:meta:Bot policy]]
It is implemented in all small wikipedias I am active.
Bot owners (in
theory) leave a request at a special bot page, if
there are no objections
within a reasonable time (a week or so), the steward
grants the bot
status. Once I had to report on meta and actually ask
stewards to grant
the bot flag for some of the old requests on os.wp.
You may be sure the small wikis suffer much more when
a bot can not get
the status since the list of recent changes becomes
unusable - this is for
instance what is right now happening with the newly
created wikis.
This is one of the most problematic issues: Asking for bot flag on ~250 projects is really painful. There should be one place for asking the bot flag for interwiki bots.
Please no global flag for interwiki bots. An all Wikipedia flag would be fine but not a global one. Interwiki's to not work in a strait forward fashion on Wikisource and bots using the code that works on Wikipedias create a big mess on Wikisource. Interwikis bots will probably only be able to be work properly off of a "white-list" on Wikisources. These white-list have not yet been made so for right now interwikis need to be done by hand. Please do not authorize any bots to do this task on Wikisources.
Birgitte SB
Birgitte SB
There is no reason to panic. Just because a bot gets a technical bot flag does not mean we bot operators will go out of our way to wreck projects. We are reasonable people. A note on the global bot fag request page or a general "global bot noticeboard page" can do wonders in such a case.
As for the problems experienced on wikisource, they are not technical ones. The problems there are purely cultural and often consequences of centuries old disputes (such as the bible case). This however is not the time and place to discuss that.
- White Cat
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Wed, 5/28/08, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
From: Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [WikiEN-l] Bot policy for all wikis To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Wednesday, May 28, 2008, 10:51 PM On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 11:50 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
We do have a bot policy:
[[:meta:Bot policy]]
It is implemented in all small wikipedias I am active.
Bot owners (in
theory) leave a request at a special bot page, if
there are no objections
within a reasonable time (a week or so), the steward
grants the bot
status. Once I had to report on meta and actually ask
stewards to grant
the bot flag for some of the old requests on os.wp.
You may be sure the small wikis suffer much more when
a bot can not get
the status since the list of recent changes becomes
unusable - this is for
instance what is right now happening with the newly
created wikis.
This is one of the most problematic issues: Asking for bot flag on ~250 projects is really painful. There should be one place for asking the bot flag for interwiki bots.
Please no global flag for interwiki bots. An all Wikipedia flag would be fine but not a global one. Interwiki's to not work in a strait forward fashion on Wikisource and bots using the code that works on Wikipedias create a big mess on Wikisource. Interwikis bots will probably only be able to be work properly off of a "white-list" on Wikisources. These white-list have not yet been made so for right now interwikis need to be done by hand. Please do not authorize any bots to do this task on Wikisources.
Birgitte SB
Birgitte SB
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--- On Thu, 5/29/08, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
From: White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [WikiEN-l] Bot policy for all wikis To: birgitte_sb@yahoo.com, "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, May 29, 2008, 1:35 PM There is no reason to panic. Just because a bot gets a technical bot flag does not mean we bot operators will go out of our way to wreck projects. We are reasonable people. A note on the global bot fag request page or a general "global bot noticeboard page" can do wonders in such a case.
As for the problems experienced on wikisource, they are not technical ones. The problems there are purely cultural and often consequences of centuries old disputes (such as the bible case). This however is not the time and place to discuss that.
I don' know why you read "panic" in my message, but it is not how I am feeling about this.
You are incorrect about the problems being "cultural". Unless you understand the fact that there are commonly multiple translations of a work in a single language while the interwiki system only allows 1:1 links to be cultural. Personally I think the developers will someday work out a technical solution to this problem, but for now we need to avoid running the script built for Wikipedia on Wikisources.
I don't understand why an "interwiki" bot, whose script should not be running on a Wikisource should be given a flag to operate there. While I do fully believe bot operators will not go out of their way to wreck projects, I don't see any reason to give such an easy opportunity for unintentional harm to be done.
Birgitte SB
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Thu, 5/29/08, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
From: White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [WikiEN-l] Bot policy for all wikis To: birgitte_sb@yahoo.com, "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Thursday, May 29, 2008, 1:35 PM There is no reason to panic. Just because a bot gets a technical bot flag does not mean we bot operators will go out of our way to wreck projects. We are reasonable people. A note on the global bot fag request page or a general "global bot noticeboard page" can do wonders in such a case.
As for the problems experienced on wikisource, they are not technical ones. The problems there are purely cultural and often consequences of centuries old disputes (such as the bible case). This however is not the time and place to discuss that.
I don' know why you read "panic" in my message, but it is not how I am feeling about this.
You are incorrect about the problems being "cultural". Unless you understand the fact that there are commonly multiple translations of a work in a single language while the interwiki system only allows 1:1 links to be cultural. Personally I think the developers will someday work out a technical solution to this problem, but for now we need to avoid running the script built for Wikipedia on Wikisources.
I don't understand why an "interwiki" bot, whose script should not be running on a Wikisource should be given a flag to operate there. While I do fully believe bot operators will not go out of their way to wreck projects, I don't see any reason to give such an easy opportunity for unintentional harm to be done.
Birgitte SB
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
The use of "panic" was a pun, an intended over exaggeration for semi-comical nature. To ease tensions.
Interwiki linkage was intended to be a 1:1 system - translations of the covered subject. Wikisource is using interwikis incorrectly. Interwiki.py is doing exactly what it is designed for. I doubt heavily that developers will come up with a solution.
On wikisource only general articles like [[Bible]] should be interwiki linked. Each translation of the Bible is considered as a separate version. The translations of the bible can differ greatly due to disputes that age over a millennium. Interwiki links should not be used on the individual chapters of bible "translations" which are really reinterpretations. This isn't the bots or programmers fault. It is hence a cultural issue rather than technical.
Separating a project is kind of a segregation we do not want. People operating interwiki bots with global flags will have very solid operational parameters. They will have to deal with it once in meta. On meta operators will learn which wikis they can and cannot operate the bot without going through days of hundereds of tireless requests.
Wikibooks has the same problem - interwiki linking is rather more complicated for the non-Wikipedia project. I think it would be acceptable to give a global bot flag BUT bots are only to work where approved (ie not on Wikibooks unless you ask first; not on Wikisource if you ask first). This allows stewards to not waste time flagging a bot on all Wikipedias (use the global flag) but the bot should then only work on Wikipedias (unless it is allowed to work on the other families). However, thoughts on this may differ. I know many don't agree that people/bots are able to /not/ use rights they have, but that's just not true. Just because a bot is globally flagged as such doesn't mean it must work on all wikis - it is quite easy to restrict it to only one family.
Mike.lifeguard
-----Original Message----- From: Birgitte SB [mailto:birgitte_sb@yahoo.com] Sent: May 29, 2008 3:23 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [WikiEN-l] Bot policy for all wikis
--- On Wed, 5/28/08, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
From: Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [WikiEN-l] Bot policy for all wikis To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, May 28, 2008, 10:51 PM On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 11:50 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
We do have a bot policy:
[[:meta:Bot policy]]
It is implemented in all small wikipedias I am active.
Bot owners (in
theory) leave a request at a special bot page, if
there are no objections
within a reasonable time (a week or so), the steward
grants the bot
status. Once I had to report on meta and actually ask
stewards to grant
the bot flag for some of the old requests on os.wp.
You may be sure the small wikis suffer much more when
a bot can not get
the status since the list of recent changes becomes
unusable - this is for
instance what is right now happening with the newly
created wikis.
This is one of the most problematic issues: Asking for bot flag on ~250 projects is really painful. There should be one place for asking the bot flag for interwiki bots.
Please no global flag for interwiki bots. An all Wikipedia flag would be fine but not a global one. Interwiki's to not work in a strait forward fashion on Wikisource and bots using the code that works on Wikipedias create a big mess on Wikisource. Interwikis bots will probably only be able to be work properly off of a "white-list" on Wikisources. These white-list have not yet been made so for right now interwikis need to be done by hand. Please do not authorize any bots to do this task on Wikisources.
Birgitte SB
Birgitte SB
Like I implied on my earlier post. Regulating it would be much easier and time consuming from a central location: Meta.
- White Cat
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 10:22 PM, mike.lifeguard mike.lifeguard@gmail.com wrote:
Wikibooks has the same problem - interwiki linking is rather more complicated for the non-Wikipedia project. I think it would be acceptable to give a global bot flag BUT bots are only to work where approved (ie not on Wikibooks unless you ask first; not on Wikisource if you ask first). This allows stewards to not waste time flagging a bot on all Wikipedias (use the global flag) but the bot should then only work on Wikipedias (unless it is allowed to work on the other families). However, thoughts on this may differ. I know many don't agree that people/bots are able to /not/ use rights they have, but that's just not true. Just because a bot is globally flagged as such doesn't mean it must work on all wikis - it is quite easy to restrict it to only one family.
Mike.lifeguard
-----Original Message----- From: Birgitte SB [mailto:birgitte_sb@yahoo.com] Sent: May 29, 2008 3:23 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [WikiEN-l] Bot policy for all wikis
--- On Wed, 5/28/08, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
From: Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [WikiEN-l] Bot policy for all wikis To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Wednesday, May 28, 2008, 10:51 PM On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 11:50 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
We do have a bot policy:
[[:meta:Bot policy]]
It is implemented in all small wikipedias I am active.
Bot owners (in
theory) leave a request at a special bot page, if
there are no objections
within a reasonable time (a week or so), the steward
grants the bot
status. Once I had to report on meta and actually ask
stewards to grant
the bot flag for some of the old requests on os.wp.
You may be sure the small wikis suffer much more when
a bot can not get
the status since the list of recent changes becomes
unusable - this is for
instance what is right now happening with the newly
created wikis.
This is one of the most problematic issues: Asking for bot flag on ~250 projects is really painful. There should be one place for asking the bot flag for interwiki bots.
Please no global flag for interwiki bots. An all Wikipedia flag would be fine but not a global one. Interwiki's to not work in a strait forward fashion on Wikisource and bots using the code that works on Wikipedias create a big mess on Wikisource. Interwikis bots will probably only be able to be work properly off of a "white-list" on Wikisources. These white-list have not yet been made so for right now interwikis need to be done by hand. Please do not authorize any bots to do this task on Wikisources.
Birgitte SB
Birgitte SB
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 3:51 PM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Like I implied on my earlier post. Regulating it would be much easier and time consuming from a central location: Meta.
- White Cat
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 10:22 PM, mike.lifeguard mike.lifeguard@gmail.com wrote:
Wikibooks has the same problem - interwiki linking is rather more complicated for the non-Wikipedia project. I think it would be acceptable to give a global bot flag BUT bots are only to work where approved (ie not on Wikibooks unless you ask first; not on Wikisource if you ask first). This allows stewards to not waste time flagging a bot on all Wikipedias (use the global flag) but the bot should then only work on Wikipedias (unless it is allowed to work on the other families). However, thoughts on this may differ. I know many don't agree that people/bots are able to /not/ use rights they have, but that's just not true. Just because a bot is globally flagged as such doesn't mean it must work on all wikis - it is quite easy to restrict it to only one family.
Mike.lifeguard
-----Original Message----- From: Birgitte SB [mailto:birgitte_sb@yahoo.com] Sent: May 29, 2008 3:23 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [WikiEN-l] Bot policy for all wikis
--- On Wed, 5/28/08, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
From: Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [WikiEN-l] Bot policy for all wikis To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Wednesday, May 28, 2008, 10:51 PM On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 11:50 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
We do have a bot policy:
[[:meta:Bot policy]]
It is implemented in all small wikipedias I am active.
Bot owners (in
theory) leave a request at a special bot page, if
there are no objections
within a reasonable time (a week or so), the steward
grants the bot
status. Once I had to report on meta and actually ask
stewards to grant
the bot flag for some of the old requests on os.wp.
You may be sure the small wikis suffer much more when
a bot can not get
the status since the list of recent changes becomes
unusable - this is for
instance what is right now happening with the newly
created wikis.
This is one of the most problematic issues: Asking for bot flag on ~250 projects is really painful. There should be one place for asking the bot flag for interwiki bots.
Please no global flag for interwiki bots. An all Wikipedia flag would be fine but not a global one. Interwiki's to not work in a strait forward fashion on Wikisource and bots using the code that works on Wikipedias create a big mess on Wikisource. Interwikis bots will probably only be able to be work properly off of a "white-list" on Wikisources. These white-list have not yet been made so for right now interwikis need to be done by hand. Please do not authorize any bots to do this task on Wikisources.
Birgitte SB
Birgitte SB
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
It's been pointed out that this was already discussed elsewhere. I no longer subscribe to Wikien-l, so I cannot personally say what the resolution to such discussion was.
"Sorry, this was held in moderation and is now out of context," would've been an appropriate first response. The fact that you're continuing to debate it when others pointed out it's been debated elsewhere comes across as trying to get a different answer from before.
-Chad
It wasn't. Are you sure you are reading the right thread?
- White Cat
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 3:14 AM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 3:51 PM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Like I implied on my earlier post. Regulating it would be much easier and time consuming from a central location: Meta.
- White Cat
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 10:22 PM, mike.lifeguard <
mike.lifeguard@gmail.com>
wrote:
Wikibooks has the same problem - interwiki linking is rather more complicated for the non-Wikipedia project. I think it would be
acceptable
to give a global bot flag BUT bots are only to work where approved (ie not
on
Wikibooks unless you ask first; not on Wikisource if you ask first).
This
allows stewards to not waste time flagging a bot on all Wikipedias (use
the
global flag) but the bot should then only work on Wikipedias (unless it
is
allowed to work on the other families). However, thoughts on this may differ. I know many don't agree that people/bots are able to /not/ use rights they have, but that's just not true. Just because a bot is globally flagged as such doesn't mean it
must
work on all wikis - it is quite easy to restrict it to only one family.
Mike.lifeguard
-----Original Message----- From: Birgitte SB [mailto:birgitte_sb@yahoo.com] Sent: May 29, 2008 3:23 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [WikiEN-l] Bot policy for all wikis
--- On Wed, 5/28/08, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
From: Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [WikiEN-l] Bot policy for all wikis To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Wednesday, May 28, 2008, 10:51 PM On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 11:50 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
We do have a bot policy:
[[:meta:Bot policy]]
It is implemented in all small wikipedias I am active.
Bot owners (in
theory) leave a request at a special bot page, if
there are no objections
within a reasonable time (a week or so), the steward
grants the bot
status. Once I had to report on meta and actually ask
stewards to grant
the bot flag for some of the old requests on os.wp.
You may be sure the small wikis suffer much more when
a bot can not get
the status since the list of recent changes becomes
unusable - this is for
instance what is right now happening with the newly
created wikis.
This is one of the most problematic issues: Asking for bot flag on ~250 projects is really painful. There should be one place for asking the bot flag for interwiki bots.
Please no global flag for interwiki bots. An all Wikipedia flag would
be
fine but not a global one. Interwiki's to not work in a strait forward fashion on Wikisource and bots using the code that works on Wikipedias create a big mess on Wikisource. Interwikis bots will probably only be able to be work properly off of a "white-list" on Wikisources. These
white-list
have not yet been made so for right now interwikis need to be done by
hand.
Please do not authorize any bots to do this task on Wikisources.
Birgitte SB
Birgitte SB
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
It's been pointed out that this was already discussed elsewhere. I no longer subscribe to Wikien-l, so I cannot personally say what the resolution to such discussion was.
"Sorry, this was held in moderation and is now out of context," would've been an appropriate first response. The fact that you're continuing to debate it when others pointed out it's been debated elsewhere comes across as trying to get a different answer from before.
-Chad
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--- On Thu, 5/29/08, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
From: Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [WikiEN-l] Bot policy for all wikis To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, May 29, 2008, 7:14 PM
The fact that you're
continuing to debate it when others pointed out it's been debated elsewhere comes across as trying to get a different answer from before.
Not at all. I don't even know what the "answer" was elsewhere.
I am not sure what other list would be appropriate for a discussion on global flags. And I never saw the pointer to the other disscussion.
Birgitte SB
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Thu, 5/29/08, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
From: Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [WikiEN-l] Bot policy for all wikis To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, May 29, 2008, 7:14 PM
The fact that you're
continuing to debate it when others pointed out it's been debated elsewhere comes across as trying to get a different answer from before.
Not at all. I don't even know what the "answer" was elsewhere.
I am not sure what other list would be appropriate for a discussion on global flags. And I never saw the pointer to the other disscussion.
Birgitte SB
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Wrong thread, already corrected it elsewhere.
-Chad
This is debated where? It was moved here from Wikien-l.
This is an interwiki issue so foundation-l is a better place to discuss it.
- White Cat
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Thu, 5/29/08, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
From: Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [WikiEN-l] Bot policy for all wikis To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Thursday, May 29, 2008, 7:14 PM
The fact that you're
continuing to debate it when others pointed out it's been debated elsewhere comes across as trying to get a different answer from before.
Not at all. I don't even know what the "answer" was elsewhere.
I am not sure what other list would be appropriate for a discussion on global flags. And I never saw the pointer to the other disscussion.
Birgitte SB
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 10:12 AM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
This is debated where? It was moved here from Wikien-l.
This is an interwiki issue so foundation-l is a better place to discuss it.
- White Cat
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Thu, 5/29/08, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
From: Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [WikiEN-l] Bot policy for all wikis To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Thursday, May 29, 2008, 7:14 PM
The fact that you're
continuing to debate it when others pointed out it's been debated elsewhere comes across as trying to get a different answer from before.
Not at all. I don't even know what the "answer" was elsewhere.
I am not sure what other list would be appropriate for a discussion on global flags. And I never saw the pointer to the other disscussion.
Birgitte SB
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
White_Cat: I already mentioned that my message was on the wrong thread. *THIS* issue has not been discussed elsewhere, unlike the other topic.
-Chad
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 9:12 AM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
This is debated where? It was moved here from Wikien-l.
This is an interwiki issue so foundation-l is a better place to discuss it.
- White Cat
This is a list about **FOUNDATION** matters, not interwiki matters. Not everything that relates to several wikis is a **FOUNDATION** matter.
Isn't there a wikimedia mailing list?
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 9:25 PM, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 9:12 AM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
This is debated where? It was moved here from Wikien-l.
This is an interwiki issue so foundation-l is a better place to discuss it.
- White Cat
This is a list about **FOUNDATION** matters, not interwiki matters. Not everything that relates to several wikis is a **FOUNDATION** matter.
Isn't there a wikimedia mailing list?
Well...actually not really. There is a (hardly used) list for meta.wikimedia and there is wikipedia-l, but if you're discussing real interwiki/interproject issues, there is hardly any other venue than foundation-l. That's also the reason why this message was approved, I'd honestly be at a loss to tell White Cat where else to go with this.
Michael
2008/6/1 Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com:
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 9:25 PM, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 9:12 AM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
This is debated where? It was moved here from Wikien-l.
This is an interwiki issue so foundation-l is a better place to discuss
it.
- White Cat
This is a list about **FOUNDATION** matters, not interwiki matters. Not everything that relates to several wikis is a **FOUNDATION** matter.
Isn't there a wikimedia mailing list?
Well...actually not really. There is a (hardly used) list for meta.wikimedia and there is wikipedia-l, but if you're discussing real interwiki/interproject issues, there is hardly any other venue than foundation-l. That's also the reason why this message was approved, I'd honestly be at a loss to tell White Cat where else to go with this.
Michael
-- Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
More people should subscribe to the meta-wiki list in that case. Meta is there for organising interwiki issues, so people should use that list for that kind of thing.
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
More people should subscribe to the meta-wiki list in that case. Meta is there for organising interwiki issues, so people should use that list for that kind of thing.
-- Al Tally (User:Majorly) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
And the first step is enforcing the moving non foundation threads there. IT's unnused precisely becuase of the lax attitude here, and because noone dares to point where things hsould go (unlike for example, enwiki matters which are usually pointed to wikien-l )
Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
And the first step is enforcing the moving non foundation threads there.
Wikimediameta-l is for discussions about the Meta wiki, not for crosswiki discussions. If we don't want non-Foundation discussions on Foundation-l, we should create wikimedia-l or crosswiki-l, not move off-topic discussions to another list where they're off-topic.
Crosswiki-l would be most welcome!
Mike.lifeguard
-----Original Message----- From: Jesse Plamondon-Willard [mailto:pathoschild@gmail.com] Sent: June 1, 2008 6:23 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [WikiEN-l] Bot policy for all wikis
Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
And the first step is enforcing the moving non foundation threads there.
Wikimediameta-l is for discussions about the Meta wiki, not for crosswiki discussions. If we don't want non-Foundation discussions on Foundation-l, we should create wikimedia-l or crosswiki-l, not move off-topic discussions to another list where they're off-topic.
Come on, not another mailing list...
Drini: What do you mean by foundation matters?
user:alnokta
I'm serious. That would reduce traffic on foundation-l (which then I could un-subscribe from!) and put relevant cross-wiki discussion on a separate list. I'd be perfectly happy to revive the meta mailing list for this instead (contrary to Pathoschild). Meta is for coordinating the projects, so why shouldn't coordination of all projects also take place on that mailing list?
Mike.lifeguard
-----Original Message----- From: Mohamed Magdy [mailto:mohamed.m.k@gmail.com] Sent: June 1, 2008 11:46 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [WikiEN-l] Bot policy for all wikis
Come on, not another mailing list...
Drini: What do you mean by foundation matters?
user:alnokta
Because that mailinglist is for discussion OF meta.
On 02/06/2008, mike.lifeguard mike.lifeguard@gmail.com wrote:
I'm serious. That would reduce traffic on foundation-l (which then I could un-subscribe from!) and put relevant cross-wiki discussion on a separate list. I'd be perfectly happy to revive the meta mailing list for this instead (contrary to Pathoschild). Meta is for coordinating the projects, so why shouldn't coordination of all projects also take place on that mailing list?
Mike.lifeguard
-----Original Message----- From: Mohamed Magdy [mailto:mohamed.m.k@gmail.com] Sent: June 1, 2008 11:46 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [WikiEN-l] Bot policy for all wikis
Come on, not another mailing list...
Drini: What do you mean by foundation matters?
user:alnokta
-- --alnokta
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
mike.lifeguard wrote:
I'm serious. That would reduce traffic on foundation-l (which then I could un-subscribe from!) and put relevant cross-wiki discussion on a separate list.
I've actually considered proposing this in the past. Having one list for foundation-related discussion and another for crosswiki coordination would make discussions a lot easier to follow.
I actually *have* proposed it in the past, so I'm all for it. What I proposed was one list called wikimedia-l, for the Wikimedia movement (including crosswiki stuff & such), and then foundation-l for Foundation matters. And Foundation matters only.
2008/6/2 Alex mrzmanwiki@gmail.com:
mike.lifeguard wrote:
I'm serious. That would reduce traffic on foundation-l (which then I
could
un-subscribe from!) and put relevant cross-wiki discussion on a separate list.
I've actually considered proposing this in the past. Having one list for foundation-related discussion and another for crosswiki coordination would make discussions a lot easier to follow.
-- Alex (w:en:User:Mr.Z-man)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 2:51 PM, Jon Harald Søby jhsoby@gmail.com wrote:
I actually *have* proposed it in the past, so I'm all for it. What I proposed was one list called wikimedia-l, for the Wikimedia movement (including crosswiki stuff & such), and then foundation-l for Foundation matters. And Foundation matters only.
Yes, we've all proposed this before... and there was a pretty good consensus on foundation-l about it. But the bug report never got any further than "NEW" and the list still wasn't created. https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10999
Wikimedia-l, Community-l, Crosswiki-l... they're all basically wanting the same thing in the end, no matter what you call them.
2008/5/28 Jon scream@datascreamer.com:
We could just not get wrapped around the axle about sorting interwiki links. I don't think it is a large issue. I can be convinced otherwise however.
+1, as I believe the hip young things say these days.
Would it perhaps be simpler to have two kinds of interwiki bots? The cross-wiki ones can deal with adding and removing links, in time-honoured tradition, and the local ones can just crawl through recent changes fixing the order in whatever way is accepted on that project...
...and those projects where no-one cares, they can just remain as-is, in a vaguely disorganised form. It's unlikely to prove a crippling user-interface problem if we leave them be.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Andrew Gray wrote:
2008/5/28 Jon scream@datascreamer.com:
We could just not get wrapped around the axle about sorting interwiki links. I don't think it is a large issue. I can be convinced otherwise however.
+1, as I believe the hip young things say these days.
Would it perhaps be simpler to have two kinds of interwiki bots? The cross-wiki ones can deal with adding and removing links, in time-honoured tradition, and the local ones can just crawl through recent changes fixing the order in whatever way is accepted on that project...
...and those projects where no-one cares, they can just remain as-is, in a vaguely disorganised form. It's unlikely to prove a crippling user-interface problem if we leave them be.
I don't see any issues with this solution. It works :)
Best, Jon
2008/5/29 Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com:
2008/5/28 Jon scream@datascreamer.com:
We could just not get wrapped around the axle about sorting interwiki links. I don't think it is a large issue. I can be convinced otherwise however.
+1, as I believe the hip young things say these days.
Would it perhaps be simpler to have two kinds of interwiki bots? The cross-wiki ones can deal with adding and removing links, in time-honoured tradition, and the local ones can just crawl through recent changes fixing the order in whatever way is accepted on that project...
That would hardly be a solution, I think. Why use two bots where one could do the same thing? The solution I think is to simply tell the bot operators what order to use on what wiki. And that solution is already being implemented for several years now.
For the bots that change order to work correctly, the bot code needs to know the order. If the bot code knows the order, I see no reason not to use that information. If the bots use the correct order, there is no problem to be solved.
I am not going to agree nor disagree with that. I personally do not care about the order one bit. I do believe best solution for that is via code and svn update to interwiki.py.
- White Cat
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2008/5/29 Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com:
2008/5/28 Jon scream@datascreamer.com:
We could just not get wrapped around the axle about sorting interwiki links. I don't think it is a large issue. I can be convinced otherwise however.
+1, as I believe the hip young things say these days.
Would it perhaps be simpler to have two kinds of interwiki bots? The cross-wiki ones can deal with adding and removing links, in time-honoured tradition, and the local ones can just crawl through recent changes fixing the order in whatever way is accepted on that project...
That would hardly be a solution, I think. Why use two bots where one could do the same thing? The solution I think is to simply tell the bot operators what order to use on what wiki. And that solution is already being implemented for several years now.
For the bots that change order to work correctly, the bot code needs to know the order. If the bot code knows the order, I see no reason not to use that information. If the bots use the correct order, there is no problem to be solved.
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
These are software issues not policy issues. If a fix is needed for it bugzilla (pywikipediabot bugzilla) is the median for it. Pywikipedia bot and AWB uses SVN meaning the source of all these bots are synchronized.
There is no way for a human being to know what each and every of the 200+ wikis individually agreed up on some discrete sub-page in a language coder isn't necessarily familiar with.
The point is
- Bot operators are humans and asking them to dea with 200+ different flavors of bot policy and "wiki-ways" is very unreasonable. - An interwiki standard would help all wikis run more efficent bot policies which are intended to regulate bot usage. - It would be easier for individual wikis to adopt a standard that the interwiki community agreed up on.
- White Cat
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Let me add that I think it's ridiculous to use the sorting order of the Roman alphabet for languages that don't use it.
I can appreciate the sentiment of wanting to sort people's languages alphabetically according to the native names for the languages, but there is no scheme for sorting all writing systems, rather, each writing system has its own sorting order. It could very possibly be counterintuitive for a speaker of Hebrew to find "עברית" between H and J, instead they are expecting to find it between samech and peh. I'm guessing that the second thought, when it's not there (because most of the entries are in the Latin alphabet, so they can't look between samech and peh), is to look for it under the "H" for "Hebrew" rather than under the I for "Ivrit", but I could be wrong, this is just an example.
Mark
2008/5/28 Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com:
I do think it's unacceptable that Interwiki bots go in and change the order of interwikis against the agreed-upon orders at each Wiki.
I remember a while back, we agreed on en.wp to order interwiki links by code, and it seems that the bots never cared - ja: always came after nl: rather than after it:. I'm not sure if a different policy has been decided since then, but bots have always been oblivious, it seems.
Mark
2008/5/28 Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info:
Hmm, it appears it didn't forward properly last time. Let's try again.
KTC
On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 03:55 +0300, White Cat wrote:
We should require interwiki bot operators to
Know each language they operate their bot so that they can read and
memorize
each and every bot policy.
Expect them to watch and follow each and every talk page on every wiki. Require them to have 5-10 checks of these talk pages per day.
Wait several years (for the wiki to grow) before getting a bot flag.
Or would that be unreasonable?
Perhaps a unified standard bot policy is needed for mindless tasks like interwiki linking, double redirect fixing and commons delinking.
The interwiki bot policy would set the standard for these mindless
tasks.
Such a standard would let bot operators to operate more efficiently. Particularly the largest wikis and the smallest wikis are very aloof
from
such a standard.
Very small wikis often have a mini dictatorship by a few users (not referancing anybody spesific). Such small wikis generally have
cooperative
people but sometimes the wikis regulars do not understand what
interwiki
bots and botflags are about and why such are necessary.
Very large wikis often have overly complicated policies. For someone
only
interested in dealing with mindless bot tasks these pose an unnecessary bureaucracy. Due to the language barrier reading these policies alone
can be
quite a challenge.
- White Cat
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I do think it's unacceptable that Interwiki bots go in and change the order of interwikis against the agreed-upon orders at each Wiki.
I remember a while back, we agreed on en.wp to order interwiki links by code, and it seems that the bots never cared - ja: always came after nl: rather than after it:. I'm not sure if a different policy has been decided since then, but bots have always been oblivious, it seems.
So, this should be solved. And I think that pywikipedibot (maybe more than 90% WM bots) implements that for a long time. It is even possible to change the order from wiki to wiki and it is integrated in the code of PWB framework.
2008/5/28 Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com:
I do think it's unacceptable that Interwiki bots go in and change the order of interwikis against the agreed-upon orders at each Wiki.
I remember a while back, we agreed on en.wp to order interwiki links by code, and it seems that the bots never cared - ja: always came after nl: rather than after it:. I'm not sure if a different policy has been decided since then, but bots have always been oblivious, it seems.
Maybe you should have *shock* told us? Long time ago en: decided to use alphabetically by language name. So the bot programmers implemented that. Since then, we haven't been told it has been decided differently, so we haven't changed it. We have some nice code, but no crystal balls. We use whatever order the local community prefers, but we do need to be told what that preference is.
2008/5/29 Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com:
2008/5/28 Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com:
I do think it's unacceptable that Interwiki bots go in and change the order of interwikis against the agreed-upon orders at each Wiki.
I remember a while back, we agreed on en.wp to order interwiki links by code, and it seems that the bots never cared - ja: always came after nl: rather than after it:. I'm not sure if a different policy has been decided since then, but bots have always been oblivious, it seems.
Maybe you should have *shock* told us? Long time ago en: decided to use alphabetically by language name. So the bot programmers implemented that. Since then, we haven't been told it has been decided differently, so we haven't changed it. We have some nice code, but no crystal balls. We use whatever order the local community prefers, but we do need to be told what that preference is.
I searched, and the information about interwiki sorting order that I found is:
"The link tags should be sorted alphabetically based on the local names of the languages, as described at m:Interwiki sorting order. The vast majority of articles are currently sorted this way." - [[en:Help:Interlanguage links]].
So if this rule has changed, then please change the information AS WELL AS notifying the bot programmers.
Please read my original e-mail, where I said I'm not aware of up-to-date information, but I remember participating in a vote at en.wp where sorting by code won overwhelmingly.
Mark
2008/5/29 Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com:
2008/5/29 Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com:
2008/5/28 Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com:
I do think it's unacceptable that Interwiki bots go in and change the order of interwikis against the agreed-upon orders at each Wiki.
I remember a while back, we agreed on en.wp to order interwiki links by code, and it seems that the bots never cared - ja: always came after nl: rather than after it:. I'm not sure if a different policy has been decided since then, but bots have always been oblivious, it seems.
Maybe you should have *shock* told us? Long time ago en: decided to use alphabetically by language name. So the bot programmers implemented that. Since then, we haven't been told it has been decided differently, so we haven't changed it. We have some nice code, but no crystal balls. We use whatever order the local community prefers, but we do need to be told what that preference is.
I searched, and the information about interwiki sorting order that I found is:
"The link tags should be sorted alphabetically based on the local names of the languages, as described at m:Interwiki sorting order. The vast majority of articles are currently sorted this way." - [[en:Help:Interlanguage links]].
So if this rule has changed, then please change the information AS WELL AS notifying the bot programmers.
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I support global bot flag for interwiki bots.. it will make life easier for those of us running interwiki bots, instead of duplicating the request for bot status on every single project. I believe there is no such need for it.. all I'm (we?) getting the flag for is the usual python interwiki.py -always -autonomous -start:something .. if a user misuses the global flag, it is taken from them and their abuse reverted. simple as that.
2008/5/29 Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com:
Please read my original e-mail, where I said I'm not aware of up-to-date information, but I remember participating in a vote at en.wp where sorting by code won overwhelmingly.
So? You remember participating in a vote... I know of one such vote, which is not overwhelming (63 against 53 for using the codes), and which actually went the other way for the first 1.5 years of its running. Either get the English Wikipedia to MAKE THE DECISION or STOP COMPLAINING about people not following a decision THAT DOES NOT EXIST. The current language order in the bot was done that way because we were told to do so by the English Wikipedia. I'd happily change it, but THE DECISION IS UP TO THE ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA, NOT TO YOU.
I apologize for the tone of this message, it was uncalled-for. Still, my main point stands: As long as the en: wikipedia has not stated that their agreed-upon order is by code, there is no ground for criticizing someone for not following that non-agreement.
2008/5/29 Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com:
2008/5/29 Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com:
Please read my original e-mail, where I said I'm not aware of up-to-date information, but I remember participating in a vote at en.wp where sorting by code won overwhelmingly.
So? You remember participating in a vote... I know of one such vote, which is not overwhelming (63 against 53 for using the codes), and which actually went the other way for the first 1.5 years of its running. Either get the English Wikipedia to MAKE THE DECISION or STOP COMPLAINING about people not following a decision THAT DOES NOT EXIST. The current language order in the bot was done that way because we were told to do so by the English Wikipedia. I'd happily change it, but THE DECISION IS UP TO THE ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA, NOT TO YOU.
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
2008/5/29 Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com:
The current language order in the bot was done that way because we were told to do so by the English Wikipedia. I'd happily change it, but THE DECISION IS UP TO THE ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA, NOT TO YOU.
The answer is surely to include interwiki-link ordering as a parameter that can be set for each wiki. That way, whatever order they're in at the end of the article, they show up in the correct order in the rendered page.
The bug is: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2867
Surely someone can get that patch into acceptable shape for the MediaWiki code?
(unless there's some problem with it that isn't clear from the bug - cc to wikitech-l)
- d.
Right. Such technical problems can be solved in many ways. But this wasn't the point of this post.
- White Cat
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 4:38 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/5/29 Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com:
The current language order in the bot was done that way because we were told to do so by the English Wikipedia. I'd happily change it, but THE DECISION IS UP TO THE ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA, NOT TO YOU.
The answer is surely to include interwiki-link ordering as a parameter that can be set for each wiki. That way, whatever order they're in at the end of the article, they show up in the correct order in the rendered page.
The bug is: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2867
Surely someone can get that patch into acceptable shape for the MediaWiki code?
(unless there's some problem with it that isn't clear from the bug - cc to wikitech-l)
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org