Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Wikimapiabot

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was

Denied.

Wikimapiabot[edit]

Operator: Alexandre Koriakine

Automatic or Manually Assisted: manually

Programming Language(s): php/perl

Function Summary:Insert new article from Wikimapia to Wikipedia if there isn't one

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run):Continuous

Edit rate requested: 1 edits per minute

Already has a bot flag (Y/N):N

Function Details:creating new pages from Wikimapia info, create geospatial info for Wikipedia object if there's no

Discussion[edit]

Strongly support. Crosslinking geographical articles in Wikipedia with maps in Wikimapia can only benefit both projects, and automating the process will encourage users to be more active in this endeavour. David Cannon 22:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, can I get a diff or two on this one please..... I need examples -- Tawker 20:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://wikimapia.org/#y=-18077979&x=-178857422&z=8&l=0&m=a&v=2&show=/1479813/ (Matei Airfield is the only airport on the island of Taveuni, off the coast of Vanua Levu) is places like this have to be in Wikipedia, or they need more info? Um, the prevailing policy on Wikipedia allows extremely short articles, called stubs, which other users may expand later. The only rules are that they must be about notable topics, and must be tagged with a "stub" template, inviting users to expand the article. An airfield is considered notable; on the other hand, a corner store would not be. The information about Matei Airfield, in this case, is quite sufficient to begin a stub. David Cannon 12:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC). So in the info of Matei Airfield there will be a button 'create wikipedia article', and on pressing it bot will create article with name of Matei Airfield, info, stub box, coordinates box. The bot is not working because there's a line in Wikipedia to not to use if not approved.Alexandre Koriakine 08:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is this different than what the various {{Geolinks-US-streetscale}} style templates are doing now with Google map images? It appears to me that all that Wikimapia does is use google maps. -- RM 20:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why the bot is different or you are talking about Wikimapia? It's written on the Wikimapia page.Alexandre Koriakine 08:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that we already use Google map images in our articles through the use of the aformentioned template (among others). I'm not sure what Wikimapia provides in addition to the google maps that we already use. It seems that Wikipedia uses google maps anyway, so where is the advantage or usefulness for this bot? The licensing of Wikimapia is not compatible with inclusion in Wikipedia, so only similar links can be accomplished anyway. Also, Wikimapia has advertising, and we are not supposed to be promoting any particular advertising site. While I may not oppose this, I don't understand what it adds. -- RM 04:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe something wrong with your browser and you don't see the difference (look at screenshot http://travelerism.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/wikimapia.jpg), but Wikimapia provides a wiki approach to google maps, and this has made Wikimapia so popular and this is why Wikimapia is a brother project to Wikipedia. What about bot, it just will create new fresh articles by user request with info from Wikimapia, it will help Wikipedia to grow. Look above example of Matei Airfield

What about your complains, so please take in mind:

In {{Geolinks-US-streetscale}} half of the links contain advertising, even link to google is a kind of hidden advertising we could say. So advertising is not a trouble. (Someone receive resources from donations, someone receive from advertizing).
In {{Geolinks-US-streetscale}} most of resources have license incompatible with Wikipedia. So license is not a trouble.

I hope I explained some aspects about Wikimapia. Alexandre Koriakine 09:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the screenshot above has helped clarify the issue quite a bit. I wasn't opposing this purely on the concerns I mentioned, I just wanted clarification as to how this provided additional information, other than to a site that seemed to me to be nothing more than something we already have plus advertising. Clearly the screenshot indicates otherwise. Can you please provide a diff on how you would change a Wikipedia article? All we have currently are links to wikimapia, but no diffs here. -- RM 13:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding geospatial information to existing Wikipedia articles seems like a good idea but I'm concerned about creating new articles based on Wikimapia. Many Wikimapia articles appear too brief to be Wikipedia articles (e.g. [1]). I am also not sure if Wikipedia needs an article on all the locations listed in Wikimapia. Cedars 05:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is that they don't. As planned, the bot would not automatically create a wikipedia article from every Wikimapia article, but would simply make it easier for users wishing to do so. David Cannon 09:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable. Cedars 08:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could have it run 5 edits so that we can see what it does more specifically.Voice-of-All 08:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of stubs can we expect? Please show 10 example diffs.Voice-of-All 19:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can't do this. Per WikiMapia, "A free license, the major goal of Wikipedia, is a policy yet to be determined, however." Without their articles being under GFDL, we can't take their information. --Rory096 01:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denied. As per the above listed licensing issues. This bot can't legally copy information from WikiMapia unless the GFDL is used. As such this bot can't be approved. Plus, this bot has had no discussion in a positive direction in a month, so it's time to close this request. -- RM 12:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.