Talk:Bot policy/Archives/2009

Clarifying 'regular' edits

This line should be changed to read something like this:

• the bot must edit regularly without a bot flag for at least a week or make 100 edits on the applicable wikis for demonstration purposes;

One edit one or two weeks ago shouldn't qualify. -- sj | help translate |+ 01:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, that is indeed the intended meaning. —Pathoschild 20:37:10, 06 March 2009 (UTC)

Making this policy opt-out or strengthening opt-in

I am quite concerned about the precedent that leaving an english-language message for a week on a village pump that native-language authors do not use, on wikis where there are active editors (and sometimes active admins) constitutes any kind of 'due notice'. we should not pretend that this informs any local editors, and should find better ways to do so. This is only done, as far as I can tell, for bot requests and recently 'requests to implement global bot policy' -- a request that is almost universally made, ignored, and implemented as though a week's silence were consent.

Since it makes sense for bots to stop clogging up RC's on those wikis, let's clarify bot policy here on meta, and either get consensus that this should be an opt-out policy, or define a better way to request that small wikis implement it.

1. If it were opt-out, the memo left on newly formed wikis' public pages could say something like "This wiki is now recognizing bots by default according to the global bot policy. To opt out of this policy and review bot requests locally, read on." --- and we should make a point of asking localizers to translate this as one of the core messages for a new wiki. Since "show bots" on RC is translated as a core message, anyone confused about where edits are coming from can readily figure out how to toggle that flag on to review all bot changes and potentially ask for a bot to be deflagged or blocked.

2. If it remains opt-in, we should define 'opt in' in terms of #s of local editors (not just bot maintainers) commenting on the proposal, and in terms of the activity level of the wiki. If noone has commented but the wiki has active editors, that's clearly not approval. If there are no non-bot editors, what's really going on? Some wikis just have slooower time scales -- maybe 2 months is better for some of them.

-- sj | help translate |+ 03:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Sj. I don't think your proposal makes sense. To avoid implementing the policy on wikis without local discussion, we should implement them on all wikis without even proposing it locally, then demand a consensus to unimplement it? This is less open than the current process.

Implementation is not a grave issue; if a community member comes along three months later and objects, global bots will be disabled on that wiki. Out of the 217 wikis that have implemented it, this has never happened that I can recall. Before implementing a proposal, I ensure these proposals are on or linked from community discussion pages, and delay implementation longer on wikis with active users. Users have plenty of time to comment or request a translation.

I'm not strongly opposed to an opt-out process, but I think it is less open than the current opt-in process. —Pathoschild 04:15:29, 06 April 2009 (UTC)

You are currently effectively demanding a consensus to unimplement it, on any wiki where the local editors do not use their village pump or don't read policy pages every week. I am suggesting being more transparent about the effect this has, rather than claiming that silence = adoption. Since there are many people who want to see bot policy implemented on tiny wikis where noone knows what it is or how to comment on this idea, we should be up front about the fact that it is actually an opt-out policy for those wikis -- once they get large enough to have an opinoin about the policy, they should be able to discover that they have a choice and take control of bot approvals directly.

I agree implementation isn't the issue. Setting a precedent that silence on small wikis equals acceptance of a proposed change, or that hyper-active wikis can determine what is a reasonable amount of time to leave notices up on smaller ones, is what concerns me.

Communities new enough not to know how to accept bot policy or monitor their Village Pumps certainly won't know that they had a choice or that they /could/ complain even if they wanted to.

I would prefer opt-in, all else being equal. But people are not waiting for local acceptance, and there is some logic in not wanting bots to clog up recent changes for small wikis that don't yet know what bots are or how to review new bot editors. -- sj | help translate |+

Strictly speaking, robots should not be operating on these wikis in the first place. Certainly not en mass in any case. Hillgentleman 06:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, incorrect interwiki links are harder to fix if some wikis are out of the reach of global bots. A newer look at the interlanguage link would be a better solution, but it doesn't seem to be progressing very fast... --Silvonen 06:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it. Robots are double-edged. The interwiki-mess became a problem because the interwiki.py was so easy to use that people use it carelessly. It would only get better if the links are not added blindly. This is a very likely scenario - think of a new wiki who starts to write an article on the concept of "money" and happens to point it to en:currency. With the bots running around you will have a hard time fixing it. I have often times added a nobot-template just to make sure that interwiki bots don't screw up again. In four words, 寧缺毌濫 (better lack than excess). Hillgentleman 20:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It happens a lot that a new article has wrong interwiki's. What do you think of the example that an article about the year 1988 point to en:1989. All the autonomous bots will add that wrong link. Until someone manual fixes it. The mess bots makes can sometimes only be solved by bot's with good operators and a lot of flags. The right to run as a global bot is one you have earn and you need to be skillfull. Carsrac 12:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The opt-out option needs to be more public, because sometimes a wiki will accept the global bot policy only if you can step out of easily. Carsrac 12:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Double redirects

Note that on en.wiki "global bot" only allows to interwiki, not to fix double redirects. Rich Farmbrough 04:44 9 December 2009 (GMT).