Wikipedia talk:Bots/Archive policy

editing tools
whilst most users just use a normal browser others may decide to supplement thier editing operation in various ways.

lets look at the spectrum from definately not a bot to definately a bot


 * using an unmodified browser (definately not a bot)
 * using a browser plugin (like say spelcheck)
 * using a tool to load up articles to edit and find the right place (say load backlinks from a disabig and find where in the page those backlinks are and let you make the edits)
 * using a tool to load up articles to edit and allow you to select from a range of options (say with the disambig options above letting you change the link to somehting listed on the disambig page with one keypress).
 * using a tool to automatically propse edits but checking them manually before comitting them to wikipedia.
 * using a tool to automatically edit without human supervision (definately a bot)

my question is where in this spectrum do we draw the line and say that bot permission is needed before using the tool. Plugwash 17:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I would say anything that makes more than about a dozen edits with a single user command should be subject to community scrutiny. I think the largest concern about bots is the amplification effect, which works as well for bugs and unpopular decisions as it does for helpfulness.  If you're using a tool that makes your one-for-one or three-for-one edits more efficient, I say no need to go through all the trouble of pre-approval.  Anyone can make lousy edits one at a time, with or without the help of a program. -- Beland 03:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I Hate Bots!
I hate bots that add articles to Wikipedia. I hate it for many reasons:


 * The articles they produce can often be very detailed leaving no room for human edit. This means that the bots are lowering the chance of any human user to receive an award. This may sound selfish but it is true. Many Wikipedia users edit, create and delete articles to be recognised and be seen as trustworthy Wikipedians. However, the only things being recognised is a bunch of codes.


 * Bots can produce practically anything on Wikipedia. This point relates to my first. They will then leave little chance for an edit or even for an article to even be produced. Alot of people on Wikipedia, work on Wikipedia because they find it fun and interesting to make articles. Bots are removing the chance for people to enjoy working on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should be used as a site where people can enjoy themselves, not just where they can learn things.


 * This point is not as important but if there is an article that is found to have not been made thena human user on Wikipedia may decide to write an article. However if so many bots are online then how would this user be able to get help. If bots were so good then many people would create them resulting in an overload of non human users. Think about it.

What is our main reason for going on Wikipedia and being Wikipedians? Is it to learn or to edit and enjoy yourself editing. Add your opinion here...Why people use Wikipedia. This page has just been created because of what I just said. (unsigned comment by Erebus555)


 * I love bots, I love them for many reason:


 * Most bots don't create articles, and if they do they generally can only add facts or statistics. This does not create a good encylopedia article, rather it creates good sections. For instance, he rambot created a ton of articles, but they weren't good articles, but they were better than nothing and they were a good starting point.


 * Again, most bots aren't in the business of making articles. The vast majority of bot edits are minor edits that are made to a large number of pages. This is primarily "janitorial" work, and it's work that would be very tedious for a human to do (for instance, I am almost finished using a semi-automated bot to transwiki about 1000 articles to wiktionary - which is a very tedious process). (unsigned comment by Kevin Rector)


 * Note: the following post was written before i saw the preceding post and says much the same thing


 * The original post seems to be either misinformed or a troll i can't really tell which. but some of the assertations made are plain wrong.


 * bots rarely create anything of much substance (they sometimes create stubs or help import material from outside sources but they don't really write articles as such.


 * bots are mainly used for drudgework which would be very slow and boring to do by hand (disambiguation,fixing punctuation errors,rearangeing categories etc) and doesn't involve any real creativity.


 * bots do not (at least not to our knowlage) edit wikipedia in a fully autonomous way they carry out simple but repetitive tasks at the command of thier masters who are nearlly always very active wikipedians in there own right.


 * in summarry bots present no threat to human editing of content whatsoever. Plugwash 17:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The above section might be an April Fool's joke held a day late. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)