Geen onderwerp

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 op gmail.com>:
>
> 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 op gmail.com> 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 op 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 op gmail.com> 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 <wikipedia.kawaii.neko op 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 op lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l op lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l op lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>