Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-06-11/Arbitration report
Discuss this story
What's most upsetting to me about the Farmbrough case is that it resulted in Helpful Pixie Bot being shut down, which was very helpful in my edits. I guess that means coding my bot is higher on my priority list now. --Nathan2055talk 01:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- This brings up an excellent point: Why are bot authors permitted to contribute their bots' edits, without contributing their bots' code? What is the possible downside to requiring that source code of bots given the privilege of the bot flag be released under an appropriate and compatible license, just like the rest of Wikipedia content? Jclemens (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Whatever the institution that okays bot use should simply require that. I'm a little stunned that that isn't the case already. If one is going to use a bot on Wikipedia, it should be a Wikipedia bot. Carrite (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- This has been the problem for years, ditto for toolserver scripts - there are nice scripts that became inusable after their authors left (or were banned); as they were never public they had to be redone from scratch (or usually, were never redone...). This is a major annoyance - and something that could make a good article for Signpost. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- I am in agreement with you all. If you have suggestions for a new piece, you can start a discussion at the Newsroom. For a change in bot policy you can start a request for comment on the bots talk page. James (Talk • Contribs) • 4:55pm • 06:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Forget that RFC's often end in stagnating inaction. Make a proposal and then get a vote on it. Targaryenspeak or forever remain silent 17:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- I am in agreement with you all. If you have suggestions for a new piece, you can start a discussion at the Newsroom. For a change in bot policy you can start a request for comment on the bots talk page. James (Talk • Contribs) • 4:55pm • 06:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- This has been the problem for years, ditto for toolserver scripts - there are nice scripts that became inusable after their authors left (or were banned); as they were never public they had to be redone from scratch (or usually, were never redone...). This is a major annoyance - and something that could make a good article for Signpost. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sometimes there are aspects of bots which can't be open sourced. For instance, I might have an opportunity to at one point do a one-shot editing bot to integrate a whole bunch of data into Wikipedia. It might be that the source code is extremely impractical to open source and would probably be of no further use. In general, bot source could ought to be open source, and it should probably be the default option, but I can think of times when it would be extremely practical to allow for closed source bots. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Precisely. We shouldn't put a few people's ideological dedication to a specific cause above practicality. Yes, urge people to publish their code, but don't force them to do it. Nyttend (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Whatever the institution that okays bot use should simply require that. I'm a little stunned that that isn't the case already. If one is going to use a bot on Wikipedia, it should be a Wikipedia bot. Carrite (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
← Back to Arbitration report