Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 14


 * 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 The result of the discussion was Symbol oppose vote.svg Withdrawn by operator.

Polbot 14
Operator: Quadell

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): Perl

Function overview: Import worthy articles from Judgepedia to Wikipedia.

Edit period(s): One time run, or split into batches, until complete

Estimated number of pages affected: A few thousand page creations, probably

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

Function details:
 * Judgepedia is a Wiki running on MediaWiki software that focuses on judges and courts. For given categories at Judgepedia (e.g. Category:Justices of the Utah Supreme Court or Category:Judges, Bankruptcy court, District of Maine), Polbot will see if there are articles that they have that we don't. If so, she'll import them (after stripping out any templates they have that we don't), and add a note similar to the one at Zoran Popovich.

Discussion

 * This is based on a request here at my talk page. Judgepedia content is released under the GFDL per Judgepedia:Copyrights. – Quadell (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not completely sure how the GFDL 1.3 Section 11 works; it looks to me like this would need to be done before June 15 unless the operators of Judgepedia decide to transition their wiki to CC-BY-SA 3.0. The only question I have about the task itself is how will a "worthy" article be determined? Anomie⚔ 02:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just by what category it's in. There's a lot of fluff at Judgepedia, but state supreme court justices should be fine, for instance. – Quadell (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to endorse this request. I had not realized there was any kind of time constraint on the Judgepedia side, but if there is that is all the more reason for us to hammer this home before that. Their articles, to the extent that we aim to copy them over, are on inherently notable figures and contain the vital statistics necessary as the core of an article (and external links leading to further information). bd2412  T 04:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The GFDL isn't totally clear, but the deadline may have already passed. From :

"An MMC is 'eligible for relicensing' if it is licensed under this License, and if all works that were first published under this License somewhere other than this MMC, and subsequently incorporated in whole or in part into the MMC, (1) had no cover texts or invariant sections, and (2) were thus incorporated prior to November 1, 2008."
 * Its not clear if coming from another wiki versus a non-publicly-editable site makes a difference. Mr.Z-man 05:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, it says "other than this MMC". I misread that earlier as "other than a MMC". So unless someone has compelling reasoning otherwise (e.g. an indication that Judgepedia intends to relicense), we'll have to deny this request. Anomie⚔ 10:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd really like to get a definitive answer -- preferably today -- on whether GFDL content can still be imported. Where's the best place to ask? – Quadell (talk) 12:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (I asked at Village pump (policy).) – Quadell (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For the One True Answer, ask User:Mike Godwin. But VPP is probably faster. Anomie⚔ 20:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless Judgepedia relicenses to CC-BY-SA, we can't use this. Stifle (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Village pump confirms, we can't do this. Oh well. – Quadell (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.