New subject: [Foundation-l] Bot policy on bots operating interwiki

8 Sep 2007

To Thomas Dalton:

I think SUL is a distant dream at this point. Even when that is available we
will have problems as how rules are set at this point. How compatible is the
local wiki policies with each other?

I am En-N Tr-4 and Ja-1. I do not understand local policies aside from those
languages (I understand Japanese with great difficulty and I do not get it
all that much). Most interwiki bot operators know just a single language.
All local bot policies must be advertised/linked from on a page on meta
preferably with an English translation. After all I can only follow rules I
can find and understand. It has to be both. It would be beyond silly if we
are going to require interwiki bot operators to know every language out
there.

All bot policies on all local wikis should be compatible with each other.
There should be a meta bot standard for a few spesific tasks such as
interwiki linking, double redirect fixing, commons delinking to avoid
conflicts. Local wikis would NOT be required to follow this standard but
they would be jawdroppingly incompetent if they did not. This is much like
how commons is. Wiki's aren't  required to use/move images on/to commons but
they are recommended to do so instead. That worked pretty well.

This will be a problem even when SUL becomes a reality... that is if it
becomes a reality.

To: effeietsanders

I bet it is the same code (redirect.py). You can intwerwiki link pages like
that with it too. The amount of attention I pay to it is directly
proportional to the number of wikis my bot operates on (other wise it is a
waste of time as explained above as another interwiki bot would simply
revert). I do not have the time for that at the moment because I have 665
wikis to request a bot flag which I rather not.

Indeed trust is important, in fact critical. How would a wiki with half a
user determine weather or not to trust a bot operator? Say the bot operator
is from de.wikipedia and local wiki user is from a far eastern language (ex:
ml.wikipedia) that does not even use latin text. How would he be able to
determine weather or not to trust a user?

I think the operation of an interwiki bot needs interwiki consensus. If a
user is trustable on an interwiki meta discussion, I think it is safe to say
he/she/it is trustable on all wikis. If a local wiki still decides to refuse
that interwiki consensus, they can and are more than welcome to block the
bot in question.

Let's take your example. Suppose a wiki states their local request of a "3
bot max" on meta. All users who want to operate an interwiki bot would see
it and react to it. That wiki would be ignored by interwiki bot operators as
per their request. Bot operators would not even bother to file a request for
an interwiki bot flag on that wiki. So this would save every one a lot of
time. As for the 699 other wikis such a restriction is not the case and they
do not have a problem with the interwiki bots.

I still need to see one logical explanation why communities need to
"approve" a spesific script repetitively.

It only makes sense to handle interwiki affairs like interwiki bots on an
interwiki median such as meta.

    - White Cat

On 9/8/07, effe iets anders &lt;effeietsanders(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
...

 From Andre's explanation I do understand that his robot is less automatic
 and he solves more manually. That means that although you might run the same
 script, the number of errors is not necessarily the same. Besides that,
 there is also a matter of trust involved (do you trust the person (s)he will
 only run that specific script? Do you trust that (s)he will do the necessary
 updates in time? And what about the conflicting situations?) So there are
 differences enough. But even if they'd not allow you, just because they want
 maximal three bots or so (which seems understandable to me) I would think
 that as a valid argument.

 But *even* if they wouldn't want a bot to have a bit just because of no
 single reason, they just dont want it, so be it. I feel that this is up to
 the *community* and not to us to decide, unless the software changes
 dramatically, as peter described before.

 Eia

 2007/9/8, White Cat < wikipedia.kawaii.neko(a)gmail.com&gt;gt;:

 I think it is beyond silly to demand people to make over 700 individual
 human edits just so they can run an interwiki bot. It takes well over weeks
 if not months of work to file all the requests. All these bots operate the
 same code. I still need to see one logical explanation why communities
 need to "approve" a spesific script repetitively. Bot A and B makes
 identical edits since they run the same code.

 No I cannot write a script. Fundamentally bots are what you call, a
 "script". What you suggest is the use of an unauthorized bot, something
 exclusively banned. I can't believe you are even suggesting it.

 If the local community is unhappy with a bot they can simply block it or
 ask on meta to be removed from wikis that support interwiki bots. If the
 local wiki does not have a single admin they they are not truly ready for a
 bot request discussion. The bot's would make rare appearances in such wikis
 with their article count anyways.

 Wikipedia/Wikimedia isn't a democracy. If devs are allowed to "force"
 software upgrades down the local communities throats, I truly do not see why
 interwiki bot operators are not allwed to do the same.

     - White Cat

 On 9/8/07, effe iets anders < effeietsanders(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

  I think that above situations have described
perfectly that bots are
 not
 perfect :) And although I think that the advantages outweight the
 disadvantages, that doesn't mean that every community (with
 0-bizillioin
 members) agrees to that conclusion. I think that it is of the
 uttermost
 importance that communities are independant, and are at least able to
 protest to another new bot user. I know this is a pain in the ass, I
 know
 this means more work to you guys, and I know that you don't like this.
 But
 when determining this kind of things, I think that you should not only
 look
 from the point of view of the bot owner, but even more to the pov of
 the
 community (yes, even is there is only half a person there). Put the
 request
 on the appropriate page (that is either a bot request page either some
 much
 visited community page or even possibly the talk:Main_Page in the
 extreme
 case) and give those folks the ability to protest to the new bots. if
 they
 don't want them, well, it's their wiki, their choise. If that is
 because of
 wrong information, well, either inform them well, either leave it
 there. I
 think it is totally wrong if stewards are forcing bots up their
 throat.

 And btw, I am confident that you are able to write some script to make
 that
 making the requests somewhat easier in the first place... For the
 stewards
 it makes no difference btw, because we have to grant hte rights
 seperately
 anyways...

 Effeietsanders

 2007/9/8, White Cat < wikipedia.kawaii.neko(a)gmail.com >:

 Yes, whats breaking the bot is human error. and as a fellow  interwiki-bot
  operator I think it would be of great help if we
were given some  slack on
  bot flag bureaucracy. You could just use the bot
to fix the bad
 interwikilink rather than fixing them manually. The policy would not  solve
  everything but would be a good step in the right
direction.

       - White Cat

 On 9/7/07, Tuvic < tuvic.tuvic(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
 >
 > Indeed, that's right. Just remember that interwiki-bots just  spread
  > the bad link, they don't make it: it are
human users who make the  bad
  > link.
 >
 > It happened to me on several occasions: I had just spend 20  minutes to
  > untangle an web of interwiki-linked
articles, and some user just  puts
  > a bad link back, because he/she thinks that
the link should be  there.
  > Very annoying, and not always revertable:
after all, I'm just an
 > interwiki-bot-operator, while it's their home wiki most of the  time.
  >
 > So, not all problems would be avoided when having a general bot  policy.
  >
 > Greetings, Tuvic
 >
 > 2007/9/7, White Cat &lt;wikipedia.kawaii.neko(a)gmail.com >:
 > > Bots aren't sentient so they can act stupidly. There are  situations
  > where
 > > you have a bad interwiki link. Unless that is removed from every
 single
 > > instance where it forms a chain it will eventually return to the  list
  > (which
 > > makes sense, the bots think the wrong link as a new member to  the
  > chain).
 > > However if all interwiki bots were able to operate on all wikis  such
  > > problems could be very easily avoided.
 > >
 > >    - White Cat
 > >
 >
 > _______________________________________________
 > foundation-l mailing list
 > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
 > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
 >
 _______________________________________________
 foundation-l mailing list
 foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
 http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
  _______________________________________________
 foundation-l mailing list
 foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
 http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l