Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Theo's Little Bot 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was Denied.

Theo's Little Bot 20[edit]

Operator: Theopolisme (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 21:56, Saturday June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: on github

Function overview: Scans through Category:Non-free images for NFUR review and attempts to automatically add a preformatted NFUR rationale when one is not is present and the image meets a series of requirements (only used in one article, only used in infobox, etc).

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot_requests#FUR_addition_bot, brfa from 4 years ago about similar task

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: Unknown (100K+ in category, will only end up processing a small subset)

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: For all images in Category:Non-free images for NFUR review, the bot...

  • checks to see if the image is eligible for an auto-generated rationale:
    • it must be tagged with one of the following:
      • "Non-free album cover",
      • "Non-free book cover",
      • "Non-free video cover", or
      • "Non-free logo"
    • it must be used in only one article
    • it must be used in that article's infobox
    • it must not already have a fair use rationale
  • If the image is eligible, then the bot adds, depending on which non-free media template it is tagged with, either:
    • "Non-free use rationale album cover",
    • "Non-free use rationale book cover",
    • "Non-free use rationale video cover", or
    • "Non-free use rationale logo"
  • The bot also adds {{Non-free autogen}} to the top of the image page, and
  • finally adds "image has rationale=yes" to the Non-free album cover/Non-free book cover/Non-free video cover/Non-free logo template.

Discussion[edit]

Approved for trial (20 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. ·addshore· talk to me! 10:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FURME picks up Infobox details for Owner, Publisher etc... Any chance the bot could do this as well? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Sfan00 IMG: I assume you're talking about functionality described at Wikipedia:FurMe#Auto_fill-in_of_fields--I can definitely look into this. Theopolisme (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done in source here; I'll get to running the trial tonight probably. Theopolisme (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sfan00 IMG: Here's the thing...it's actually quite difficult to check if an image already has a FUR rationale. For example, [1] had a rationale--but it didn't link to the article that the image was used in, it linked to a different similar article..in cases like this, where the article the image is used in isn't mentioned and no "real" FUR template exists, should the FUR template still be added? If so, then we don't have a problem. Otherwise, something else might need to be looked into. Theopolisme (talk) 01:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no harm in adding more information on the FURME fill in principle. So I wouldn't worry too much... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 06:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Once again, it looks like my attempts to complicate this task have failed. ;) That's a good thing! So, Trial complete. [2]. Theopolisme (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not adding {{Non-free autogen}}? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now it will. Good catch! Theopolisme (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (40 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. ·addshore· talk to me! 18:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that this bot request should be mentioned at WT:NFC unless it's already been mentioned there (I'm away on a holiday trip and haven't had the time to check that page recently). The idea with an FUR is that you should write it on a case-by-case basis and I'm not sure if a bot is able to do this, although these situations might have been sufficiently narrowly selected.
If you wish to detect whether the file information page has an FUR, then you can check the page length. If there is a lot of text on the page, then it probably has an FUR (although a human would have to determine what the text is). --Stefan2 (talk) 08:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the belated response, I was traveling. I've made a post at WT:NFC referring editors to this BRFA. Theopolisme (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. This task shouldn't be performed by a bot. We don't want to have a rationale just for the sake of having a rationale. The wording of a good rationale depends on the specific use in question. While there are many non-free files with generic rationales already, that's not a reason to introduce such rationales en masse. Many of those rationales might create problems with WP:NFCC#8, which requires human review. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The bot added a rationale to File:ASCII logo.png here. That file is clearly a case that fails WP:TOO and so shouldn't be tagged as NFC at all. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here the bot added a rationale for a use where a rationale was already present. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here the bot added a rationale where the article already had a rationale containing the name and wikilink to a redirect pointing to the target page where the image is being used. Consensus is that the name of a redirect pointing to the page where the file is being used is appropriate in a non-free use rationale (see the footnote at WP:NFCC#10c). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that this "over-tagging" was an issue, per There is no harm in adding more information on the FURME fill in principle. So I wouldn't worry too much..., which Sfan00 IMG said above. Is it in fact a problem? Theopolisme (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Over-tagging can cause confusion. It is best to keep it to a minimum and both points raised in the diffs are valid issues. Werieth (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As Toshio said, per WP:NFCC#10c, I think that adding a check for redirects to the target article should eliminate quite a few of these false positive taggings. I'll get right to it. Theopolisme (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Theopolisme (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Checking page length is possibly a good way to determine if a page has an FUR. If the page has lots of text, then it is likely that some of that text constitutes a fair use rationale. On the other hand, if the page is very short, then it is unlikely that someone would have managed to fit a whole FUR on the page. Maybe add a rationale if the page is "small" and do nothing if the page is "big"? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What constitutes "big" in the File namespace? I'm not too familiar with it. Theopolisme (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also this task is highly problematic with regards to the fourth bullet point at WP:NFCCE. Such a bot sends a completely wrong signal. Policy requires the users who want to use non-free content to provide a rationale when they use that non-free content. This bot appears to work counter that requirement. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't see "overtagging" as a serious issue (although it should be avoided whenever possible). I don't believe this bot is problematic at all with regards to the fourth bullet point at WP:NFCCE either. We want accurate rationales added to non-free images, and so long as the information is correct, we don't care who adds it. If a bot can do that accurately in a limited set of cases, I think that's great. This bot will improve Wikipedia, and should be approved. (Full disclosure: I'm an inactive member of BAG and an active member of the wikiprojects for Images and Media and Copyright Cleanup.) – Quadell (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if you want to end WP:NFCC. Oppose if you think we're a free content project. Here we have it, the end debate on the presence of WP:NFCC policy on this project. If this bot is allowed, then NFCC policy will be null and void. No one will have to think about why they want non-free content added. All they have to do is just add it, and the bot will take care of everything for you. This proposal is so gob-smackingly out there as to astonish even the most credulous. Had this been proposed five years ago, it would have been laughed off the project. Even just a few years ago, we argued about possibly deleting templated rationales. No more. Now, we don't have to worry about rationales at all! You don't need a reason to include non-free content...just include it! --Hammersoft (talk) 02:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support from previous discussion of the bot to operate on these highly limited but generally allowed cases. The fears Hammersoft has ignores the basic allowance of NFCI#1 under the exact conditions (infobox, at top of page, single non-free on page) described here. --MASEM (t) 03:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will point out again that this is an extremely bad idea. As long as WP:NFCCE means something, the burden to include a rationale is clearly on the users who want to use the non-free content. This bot would practically end that requirement. I cannot support this bot as long as NFCCE is policy. Get a consensus to change the policy first. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 05:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question is: do you have a problem with standard rationales for standard cases? As long as the bot is accurately identifying the standard cases, and not causing any other issues, I don't see a problem with it. The purpose of the rationales is to say why the images are being used. If this bot is accurately supplying that, then that's useful. The requirement for rationales is not intended simply to be additionally burdensome to users, nor to provide excuses to catch people out and delete content where the use is appropriate. Jheald (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the reason for this bot is to handle the trivial case of where an image meets WP:NFCI#1 (cover art), and when a number of other conditions are met that are reasonably strong assurances that the piece of NFC media is the only piece of NFC media being used on a page for purposes of cover art about a public work. In other words, if the images that would be tagged by this bot were left untagged, and end up at FFD or NFCR, there would be zero question about their retention for NFC once a proper rationale would be hand. It doesn't work for cases where there may be alt cover art, or other NFC, or where the image is not in the lead. There might be a few false positives but I simply can't see this bot doing that otherwise would have been done by humans at FFD/NFCR. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some additional suggestions:
  • Don't generate if an image is less than a month old (to allow for CSD, PUF process etc
  • Skip file description pages having similar phrases to those used by the Database report
    • Sorry for my ignorance, but what exactly are you suggesting? Theopolisme (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

for finding un-rationaled images.

  • Send notifications to uploaders when a rationale is auto-generated. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow me to be clear I object more to this proposal than I have ever objected to anything on Wikipedia. If you authorize this bot, you subvert the very nature of WP:NFCC. If the bot is authorized, I ___will___ be bringing this up to the Foundation as a direction, wholesale violation of Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. You can not proceed with this bot and expect WP:NFCC to ever be upheld again. Removing the human from this work unequivocally undermines the most crucial, important element in limiting non-free content on this project. You can not proceed. You can't. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're being silly. Even without this bot, if someone uploads a book cover but doesn't provide a rationale, I might just go through and insert a standard rationale to save the image from being deleted. "Oh no, the uploader didn't give a rationale himself! Someone else filled in that information for him! That's subverting our image policy - alert the foundation!" No, it's just someone else doing what he should have done himself, but it's a wiki, so it's no big deal. It's really no different if a bot does it. Saying things like "You can not proceed with this bot and expect NFCC to ever be upheld again" is just hyperbole. – Quadell (talk) 12:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quadell - you are making a sentient decision about the validity of a standard rationale, a bot can't. I do presume that you a) take the responsibility in case you did make a wrong decision on a rationale (of course, to err is only human), and b) do evaluate it case-by-case to see whether the standard rationale is applicable (which may be the case in most of the situation, true) and take other actions when it is not applicable (either tag the image for deletion, or use a non-standard rationale). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be prudent to start an RfC on this for wider discussion? Theopolisme (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose task - I am a long-term bot-operator, and there are certain things that should simply not be done by a bot. We've seen that with ArbCom cases on some of the bot-operators, and how Wikipedia has so many cases where the standard operation just does not fit, and how the community reacts on those. This is one of the things that should not be done by a bot, not even by a human in a bot-like manner. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Denied. Firstly, my apologies to Theo. A large amount of time and effort goes into bot writing, so it is never nice to have a task denied. This actually isn't a bad idea for a bot, and it fits in with the actual practice of what goes on with NFC content; however it is not in-line with the letter and spirit of the NFC policy, and therefore must be denied.

The resolution on licensing makes it extremely clear that the use of non-free content must be minimal and within very narrow limits. Complementing this is the Non-free content criteria. Both of these documents emphasise that the onus is on the uploader of the image to provide a rationale. The intent here is very clear, a strict non-nonsense policy regarding non-free content. The policy is deliberately hostile to non-free content: if it doesn't fit the criteria, it must be deleted.

In practice the policy does not match the reality. I think most people would accept that. In other areas of policy it might be ok to say: “well IAR -- even though the rules say this, the common practice is this, the bot will be a net-positive, approved” The problem here is this policy comes from a foundation resolution, and has legal implications, which can't be ignored. As such, this BRFA must be decided on the text of the policy, not the everyday practices. I am well aware this goes against Wikipedia's general ethos around rules and policies (in particular policies should be descriptive, not prescriptive), however the particular circumstances justify this.

It is also worth noting that if this bot were to be approved, it would further normalise and legitimate the current practices around NFC. This would create an even bigger problem, by helping to fuel the cycle - “well policy is this, but everyone else is doing this, heck they even approved a bot, it must be fine to do this then”. Approving this bot would only server to increase the gap between practice and policy, which is clearly not a good situation to be in.

The premise of this bot reverses the burden of proof for a valid rationale. “It is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale.”. I understand and accept that currently experienced users add rationales to other users images, this is fine. However (as noted above), by having a bot do this you creates a culture of laziness. Rather than actively creating a solid rationale to ensure that the image is not deleted (which is clearly the intent of NFC policy), you create a situation where a human or bot will clean-up after you. This should be avoided, not encouraged.

While generic rationales are used, that does not mean we should add them en-mass. As noted above such rationales may not meet WP:NFCC#8. Such templates by themselves are questionable with regards to NFC, and we should avoid encouraging their use. The policy is quite clear that images should be evaluated individually and on a case by case basis. Boiler plating {{Non-free use rationale logo|Article=Article Name|Use=Infobox}} onto every image flies in this face of this.

Finally, I agree with and echo the comments above about the need for human judgement.

This request, along with templates such as {{Non-free use rationale album cover}} and {{Non-free use rationale logo}} are indicative of how out of step practice is with the spirit and wording of the NFC policy. It may be that the time has come for change in the NFC policy (whether that be stricter enforcement, or a loosening of policy), however that is not the place of a BRFA. For that to happen we need an RfC. --Chris 09:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Theo%27s_Little_Bot_20&oldid=1077425818"