[WikiEN-l] New bot up for RFA

[Andrew Gray]

On 08/01/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/8/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> > There's
> > no complex checks involved a vandal can game if they know the details,
> > simply generating a list of all transclusions from a single page and
> > then setting protection for each. Unless the bot does something I'm
> > not understanding, releasing the code gives no loss of security and
> > allows the community to feel a lot more comfortable permitting it.
>
> That's why I don't understand some people are uncomfortable with it.
> It does something simple and it's not dangerous what exactly do they feel is
> so scary that the code needs to be released?

Because we don't *know* that. We know the programmer intends it to do
something simple and routine. We don't know if he has a secret plan
(he doesn't, I am sure, but someone who doesn't know of him might not
accept this), or if he's made some silly mistake whereby it'll
actually miss every transcluded template containing a "7", or if it'll
stop checking at the sixth level of transclusion because he thinks
there won't be any more, or whatever.

It's not a matter of trust; it's a matter of confidence. Because a bot
doesn't have that simple and obvious "common sense oversight" option,
we want to know *exactly* what it will do, not what the designer
intends it to do. And the only way to do that is to see what the code
is.

Fundamentally, I cannot see any reason not to release it. We're not
talking a vandalhunter here; there are no complex algorithms that can
be gamed, no part of this bot that will work better if its targets
don't know how it works, no plausible scenario where secrecy will
prove advantageous to it. It has a clearly defined, explicitly
defined, method; releasing the code to show that method shouldn't, to
my understanding, be a problem to its operation. So why not? It'll
make people feel better about it, reduce fear and uncertainty, and let
us all get on with creative work - which is what we're here for.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk