[WikiEN-l] New bot up for RFA

[MacGyverMagic/Mgm]

I still don't see the need to release the code myself, but this response
makes sense.
I'll agree to disagree and let the operator make the decision.

Mgm


On 1/8/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>