[go: nahoru, domu]

Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Consensus: tweak
MickMacNee (talk | contribs)
Line 90: Line 90:
:*So, no specific answers to the points above then? Thanks for you time. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 16:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
:*So, no specific answers to the points above then? Thanks for you time. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 16:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
::*One, stop refactoring my comments. Two, my answers are extremely specific. This is a detestable page that is heavily biased. It is inherently flawed in its language, premise, and approach. I made very direct recommendations on what should happen to this page. Perhaps you would be so kind as to exert some energy and fix the blatant bias in this page? --[[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]] ([[User talk:Hammersoft|talk]]) 16:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
::*One, stop refactoring my comments. Two, my answers are extremely specific. This is a detestable page that is heavily biased. It is inherently flawed in its language, premise, and approach. I made very direct recommendations on what should happen to this page. Perhaps you would be so kind as to exert some energy and fix the blatant bias in this page? --[[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]] ([[User talk:Hammersoft|talk]]) 16:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
:::I will move any comment that does not follow the stated operation as above, as basic vandalism and an attempt to derail. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 16:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:33, 17 February 2008

The Debate

As many might know, User:BetacommandBot is causing many discussions in different places, specifically about NFCC10c. Many different arguments are being made and issues are being lost in the noise, and people's issues with the bot are being mis-represented. MickMacNee (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of this page

The purpose of this page is to:

  • Bring together relevant previous debates
  • Centralise discussion about how BCB tags for NFCC10c compliance, nothing else
  • State the issues people have with BCB and how it tags for NFCC10c compliance
  • State suggestions for improvement
  • Establish consensus for these suggestions

It should be noted that everything I state here has a disclaimer that I can only state what I have observed or discussions/links I have found or been pointed to. I have requested info before, if none was forthcoming and I have not been able to find it, I make no apology for that. And no, I don't know how to program bots.
MickMacNee (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of principles

To prevent some of the same mis-representations and mis-directions again, I believe myself and the other concerned editors are:

  • Not interested in changing the policy
  • Hot here to advocate copyright infringement
  • Not trying to overule the Foundation
  • Experienced editors who know how to write an FUR
  • Experienced editors who know the NFCC policy
  • Experienced editors who are merely concerned at the effect this bot has on image retention rate
  • Not here for vanity, harrassment of BCB or to prove a point

I any contributors to this page feel they don't agree with the above, please can they reflect on anything they contribute. If discussions deviate from the stated aims, I or others may redirect them as appropriate.
MickMacNee (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of issues with BCB

The issues I and others have with BCB tagging for NFCC10c are:

  • The wording of the tag, it is inflammatory, innacurate and unhelpfull to many many editors.
  • The schedule, specifically, the lack of any definition of when it runs, and the act of tagging 15,000-200,000 images in two days, all to be dealt with in 7 days (as the tag states, despite any actual realities). Also the repeated references to some deadline that is to be met, and repeated assertions at the rate of new uploads.
  • The indiscriminate nature of the tags, the bot tags many different situations with the exact same tag, this has different consequences for different people. It is recognised that the bot cannot assess an FUR, that is a humans job, but the current blunt instrument approach is clearly inadequate and can be improved
  • The lack of central information about this specific tag (NFCC10c), the bot, and the issues surrounding it, which is generating far more debate and taggings than any other dealt with by the general message boards or talk pages, also leading to incredible amounts of wasted effort dealing with what are usualy repeat questions. This also seems to have produced a general lack of willingness by people who know the answers, to continually answer the same questions this bot produces.
  • The assumption of infallability about this bot and the NFCC10c requirements. It is becoming clear people think this bot is tagging all non-compliant images, and a bot is needed because humans are too slow. Well, there is a class of non-compliance that the bot never tags, and never will do. Also, the degree of non-compliance issues tagged ranges from the trivial to the severe, all treated the same way with the same tag. FUR's are for a human to judge, by definition.
    MickMacNee (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solutions

To address the above issues, I propose the folowing actions:

  1. Reprogram or reconstitute BCB for NFCC10c tagging
    1. Separate tagging runs into:
      1. Runs checking newly uploaded images immediately
      2. Runs checking newly uploaded images after a grace period to alow natural human exposure
      3. Runs checking images last changed before the date of a significant NFCC10c change
    2. Separate NFCC10c tagging from BCB into a community bot
    3. Separate NFCC10c tagging from BCB into a BetaCommand operated bot
  1. The NFCC10c tags need to be re-worded (some relate to reprograming above):
    1. State that BCB cannot assess compliance
    2. State that BCB is just a basic check, any issue may be trivial (i.e. moved pages)
    3. State where to find a FAQ board specifically for NFCC10c questions
    4. Remove the 7 day deletion threat if that is not actually the current operation
    5. State whether an RFU should be for single use or multiple use (i.e. check links)
    6. State whether the tagging is for a new image against the current NFCC policy, or for an image that may now be non-compliant due to a change in NFCC policy
  1. NFCC10c information needs to be centralised.
    1. the reason for BCB needs to be stated, with accurate numeric figures
    2. The pseudocode of BCB needs to be stated, i.e. why it tags an image
    3. The limitations of BCB for assessing compliance needs to be stated
    4. Any planned runs should be stated
    5. Any deadlines being worked towards should be stated
    6. An FAQ needs to be written for the repeated NFCC10c questions
    7. A sub help desk needs to be made and supported for the repeated NFCC10c questions

Feel free to add your own if they meet the purpose and principles of this page as stated above.
MickMacNee (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

I hope that people can register their support, opposition or a brief comment on each or all of the proposals in this section. Try to keep the consnsus statements separate from discussions, as per a proposed move type discussion.
MickMacNee (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Some options are mutually exclusive, i.e. separate the bot.

Support

Threaded discussion will be moved to the discussion section

  • Support most of the above. The details can be worked out as we move forwards. This is a good step to be taking, though I would note that BetacommandBot has been running for nearly two years now (since May 2006), and I think it has been doing image work for around a year. There is a deadline of 23 March 2008, and Betacommand has been working towards that. Give that, this may be a bit late in the day (BetacommandBot has, in the past, tagged tens of thousands of more image than just the ones done in the past week), but it would be good to get agreement on how to handle things from now on. Carcharoth (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Will (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nandesuka (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Threaded discussion will be moved to the discussion section

  • Oppose: Just another lynch mob for the bot, which was approved by WP:BAG, approved by the bureaucrats, supported by Foundation resolution, and supported by local EDP policy. This page reeks of bias against the bot. If you want to solve problems, wipe this ridiculous slate clean and start from an unbiased approach. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • I thought that WP:ICHD was specifically created, or possibly repurposed, to address BCB issues? Mind you, this page should be linked into Beta's warning, and the top needs to have a brief FAQ for dealing with BCB requests and the limitations of BCB. Also, I don't know if Beta is looking to or is able to program the bot to group warnings to a user (a very common complaint when it hits up 1000s of images at a time), though some of his newer edits suggest he might be looking into that; however, we should mention in the BCB limitations that it is unfortunate that BCB is spamming talk pages when it does large runs, but this is a necessary side effect and attempts to mitigate it are being looked at. --MASEM 15:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spamming is not necessarily unwarranted, some users upload many pictures. But with the scheduling and separation of run types would stop all the images you might have uploaded in 3 years being tagged at once. MickMacNee (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion of Hammersoft's oppose:
  • One, stop refactoring my comments. Two, my answers are extremely specific. This is a detestable page that is heavily biased. It is inherently flawed in its language, premise, and approach. I made very direct recommendations on what should happen to this page. Perhaps you would be so kind as to exert some energy and fix the blatant bias in this page? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will move any comment that does not follow the stated operation as above, as basic vandalism and an attempt to derail. MickMacNee (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]