> Bot rot

dogbiscuit

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=186224306

QUOTE

Williams eventually opted to build two slightly different FW15C tubs, so as to accommodate Hill's size 12 feet (3.7 m), as he had repeatedly complained of cramp in the tight confines around the pedals.

3 days ago. But those many eyes of Wikipedia wouldn't let such a travesty go for so long, surely?

Lar

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 29th January 2008, 6:57am)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=186224306

QUOTE

Williams eventually opted to build two slightly different FW15C tubs, so as to accommodate Hill's size 12 feet (3.7 m), as he had repeatedly complained of cramp in the tight confines around the pedals.

3 days ago. But those many eyes of Wikipedia wouldn't let such a travesty go for so long, surely?

Well that's a fairly easy one to miss I guess. I brought it to the attention of the botmaster. In general I support the notion of bots doing gnomish things (adding onversions and the like)... but as you point out, they sometimes introduce errors and the errors sometimes go unspotted for too long.

dogbiscuit

QUOTE(Lar @ Tue 29th January 2008, 4:39pm)

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 29th January 2008, 6:57am)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=186224306

QUOTE

Williams eventually opted to build two slightly different FW15C tubs, so as to accommodate Hill's size 12 feet (3.7 m), as he had repeatedly complained of cramp in the tight confines around the pedals.

3 days ago. But those many eyes of Wikipedia wouldn't let such a travesty go for so long, surely?

Well that's a fairly easy one to miss I guess. I brought it to the attention of the botmaster. In general I support the notion of bots doing gnomish things (adding onversions and the like)... but as you point out, they sometimes introduce errors and the errors sometimes go unspotted for too long.

Actually, his page has a number of systematic errors being brought to his attention. The size x feet is unlikely to be a very common encyclopedic phrase (moccasins, yes, feet no

) but all the same, it indicates that someone is writing programs without thinking through the design. (To be fair, I think this is a script, not a bot, having looked a little further - that makes it worse because he has run it against an article and not seen that the results are wrong).

A little more testing required. If Wikipedia were a production database*, I'd expect this sort of thing to be run against a test system first. However, as it is so easy to revert, people make the mistake pf thinking bots and scripts are harmless.

*which of course it is.

everyking

Although this thread was read 54 times before I got to it, it was left to me to fix the error.

Lar

QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 29th January 2008, 12:20pm)

Although this thread was read 54 times before I got to it, it was left to me to fix the error.

Better to have the botmaster fix it, in my view, they then are more motivated to fix their errant code.

everyking

QUOTE(Lar @ Tue 29th January 2008, 6:24pm)

QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 29th January 2008, 12:20pm)

Although this thread was read 54 times before I got to it, it was left to me to fix the error.

Better to have the botmaster fix it, in my view, they then are more motivated to fix their errant code.

I don't think it's worth it to have an error sitting there like that.

dogbiscuit

QUOTE(Lar @ Tue 29th January 2008, 5:24pm)

QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 29th January 2008, 12:20pm)

Although this thread was read 54 times before I got to it, it was left to me to fix the error.

Better to have the botmaster fix it, in my view, they then are more motivated to fix their errant code.

For sure. One day I may reinvigorate my enthusiasm to be helpful again. My style there is more wiki-gnome rather than major edits - there are few things I really know about aside from IT cruft. Well, other stuff that I do know about I am not neutral on, so I am reluctant to contribute.

My earlier point was a serious one though. Wikipedia cannot be treated like a test database toy. I was equally amazed that someone from Veropedia thought it acceptable to hack the Wikipedia version so that their broken extract tool could scan an article.

Moulton

If the error is fixed manually, and the 'bot code is not corrected, it's reasonable to expect the 'bot will visit the page again and repeat the error. Unless, of course, one defends against that by changing the wording to 'wears a size 12 shoe' or something like that.