Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Theo's Little Bot 26

< Wikipedia:Bots | Requests for approval
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 Request Expired.

Theo's Little Bot 26

edit

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

Time filed: 01:37, Tuesday August 6, 2013 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: on github

Function overview: This is a clone of RileyBot 11: Apply Template:COI editnotice to talk pages of articles in certain subcategories of Category:Organizations

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RileyBot 11 Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_100#COI_Template

Edit period(s): Triggered manually

Estimated number of pages affected: 1000+

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: From original BRFA,

Go through certain subcategories of Category:Organizations add Template:COI editnotice to the talk pages of the articles.

The bot checks:

Discussion

edit

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. ·addshore· talk to me! 16:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The exact category for the trial wasn't discussed in depth, but I had proposed Category:Companies based in Idaho on the Village Pump page where consensus was obtained. If that category has 1,000+ articles, it should be suitable. If not, Companies based in California was also mentioned. We need enough articles in the category to say: "At a rate of X Request Edits over a two-month period, the tag will be used in an estimated Y% of the articles with this template over a one-year period." CorporateM (Talk) 23:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trial complete. Here's the log. Theopolisme (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where do we say that this is a bad idea? Inserting stern COI warnings for no apparent reason just increases the flow of negativity. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
@AndrewDressel: One of the benefits of a trial deployment is that being bold is the best way to find those who object to the template. The template was carefully constructed to comply with the advice given in WP:COI, however you may not be aware that WP:COI was changed a while back so that it now advises against direct edits by PR reps. (I myself do direct-edit if there is clear community support for the edit) This is also the advice given by professional organizations for public relations, Jimmy Wales and others. I think the best way to proceed if you would like to build consensus to soften the language would be to start a discussion on the template's Talk page and ping some of the editors from the original discussion where consensus for the template was obtained at Village Pump. CorporateM (Talk) 12:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Theopolisme: I count about 100 articles and I think we will need a larger sample (~1,000), so we should go ahead and add companies based in California, but I suggest we wait a week or two to see what becomes of the objections raised by Andrew. CorporateM (Talk) 12:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have my reservation about this task, but to conform with consensus to trial this Approved for extended trial (the Idaho category). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. I strongly suggest you keep a log like before for statistics and so you can revert in case it's needed. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trial in progress. Sorry for the delay. Theopolisme (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Hellknowz: In your trial approval, you said "the Idaho category"...I've run it on the category, but there were only a few edits to be made. Do I have the okay for a trial in the California category as well that CorporateM mentioned above (we should go ahead and add companies based in California)? Theopolisme (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the precise scope of the trial does not have clear consensus. A couple different options (California and/or Idaho) were mentioned near the end of the discussion, however the trial has consensus in general. So the trial should cover however many articles are necessary for us to collect data and get any reactions. Not sure exactly how much that is... CorporateM (Talk) 23:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2/3 got reverted (1 got readded by bot again). Previous trial had 0 reverts that I see. Anyway, Approved for extended trial (~500 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. A larger sample of California category as per the RfC trial. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anybody advise where the central point to discuss this is on all these different linked pages, like to oppose what appears to be a warning notice on pages without any history of problems, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The best place would probably be the Talk page of the template itself at Template:COI editnotice. In the original discussion I seem to remember the discussion being that editors felt most articles about extant organizations were likely to have COI participation at some point, justifying the carpet-bombing approach. I wonder if a better approach might be to only add the tag to articles that are also tagged with COI or advert tags. CorporateM (Talk) 14:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I don't think there is an active discussion on this besides here. The original consensus was to run this once for a trial so that general disposition can be seen. Just so it's clear, this trial is not for bot approval but for a further discussion about the trial results. The bot of course won't be approved before and if such a discussion concludes. I also asked the botop to keep a log so we can revert should it be decided not to do this. Feel free to post anything that might concern the execution of this task, although it's probably best if arguments against/for the task itself be posted in the discussion after the trial, as the discussion to run the trial was already concluded. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK excuse my ignorance but you are running a trial to see if a bot works to make a change that is not approved? or is to run it to see if anybody notices either doesnt appear to be a constructive way forward. MilborneOne (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither. The bot is running an extended trial to produce a larger sample size as per Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 100#COI Template. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes I have now read it twice and it is as clear as mud, it appears the trial is to see if it looks OK, need somebody to explain what a "sample size" gives you I take it that somebody will measure if COI editors actually use the links? not sure if you can tell if it is a coi editor or somebody looking at and clicking on it see why a warning has been placed on the page. Perhaps somebody can translate what the trial is to achieve in plain English please, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Honestly, I don't know. But the consensus is there to do it, so I have no grounds of denying or stalling the BRFA. I'm not sure how exactly they will judge the usefulness of these edits besides reverts or how detailed they expected the trial to be. As per sample size, having worked with bots and BRFAs before, I know that sample sizes of less than 500 is pretty useless when talking about site-wide features, so that's what I set. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ultimately the template is successful if the editors it applies to reads it and does a better job following the guidance at WP:COI as a result. We have limited means of actually measuring this, but one way is we have placed a tracker of sorts to see how many people use the "Click here" button and we can look at if the number of Request Edits increases. Once the trial is done, another question will be whether the community wants these things. Most Request Edits are poor, which makes it a good thing if we can prevent those edits in article-space, but we also don't have enough editors willing to do the chore of responding to them. It's complicated... It would have to go back to Proposals for another round of discussion once the trial is done. CorporateM (Talk) 17:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks for your comments, so we add the template to a very small number of articles most without any history of coi editing and see if anybody clicks the links, although we dont actually know who and why they click, although most I suspect are people clicking to see why a warning-like template had been added on an article they are watching, I look forward to the results and resulting debate, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The bot edited three pages on my watchlist (which is skewed toward spammy topics). For two of them, I had had suspicions of COI editing. The third was about a company [2] that went out of business in 2001. The infobox on Kaypro says that it's defunct, and the article is in two categories of defunct companies and two categories of companies that have filed for bankruptcy. Articles about companies that have gone out of business are unlikely to attract COI editing, so they should be excluded. —rybec 21:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a big confused about this task/test. The bot added COI tags to Birdhouse Skateboards and World Industries though there is nothing to suggest COI editing has been a problem with either article. Why are we admonishing people about COI where it doesn't seem to have been an issue? I also have a concern about the edit itself - adding a template above all other talk page headers with a blank rule after it. Shouldn't it be added, 1. After talk header and WikiProject templates, and; 2. Without the blank space? I'd also query the value of adding it without a {{talk header}} template to encourage discussion. Can the test edit itself be amended? If not, the task once approved (if it is)? Stalwart111 23:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just corrected the spacing issue, which was on the template itself. I think if the template "admonishes" COI that is somewhat related to this discussion. In my view it should be in a courteous tone, however a couple editors in the original discussion pushed for "strongly" to make the template more stern. My original intention was actually to make a template similar to the BLP template, but the community did not support the idea that editors should be cautious about the reputation of companies like we do for BLPs, so it become one-sided. Anyways, part of what the trial is for is to attract such objections.
One issue is that we cannot create policy through a template - it can only repeat exactly what WP:COI says, but many editors do not agree with the current text of that policy. So editors may agree in principle with providing COI advice directly onto the article with links, but not with the contents. CorporateM (Talk) 00:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Thanks for fixing the spacing.) Yeah, I think there is certainly an element of that. I don't have a problem with strongly advising editors about our COI policy but new amoral editors with a conflict likely won't read that notice and experienced editors with disposable accounts (as outlined below) will probably ignore it. The benefit of the notice, then, is that regular non-COI editors see it and it helps them to address issues on article talk pages in line with policy. Thus my suggestion that it be included after talk templates and that talk templates should be included by the bot on pages where they currently haven't been placed. Otherwise it just looks like a notice to address non-existent issues on a talk page where discussion hasn't even been encouraged, let alone attempted. Stalwart111 01:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It appears they were chosen because they're both companies based in California. I've noticed a great deal of spam about California companies, but the group of spammers I've been following might not even see these notices: their modus operandi has usually been to create an article in a sandbox, move it to the main space, then abandon the account. Even if they did see, it wouldn't make a difference: they are professionals with a great deal of expertise and familiarity with Wikipedia, and are fully aware of the rules they are breaking.

In the earlier discussion, someone questioned the scope of the tagging, noting that conflict of interest can apply to a wide variety of topics. Consider:

  • an article about a food (agribusiness has come up with a genetically-engineered version)
  • an article about a religion (whose adherents want us to forget its crimes)
  • an article about a scientific theory (the scientist wants to promote himself)
  • an article about a musical recording (that the record company wants to sell)
  • an article about a sports team (wanting to boost its appeal to fans)
  • an article about an island (the chamber of commerce would like tourists to visit)
  • an article about a long-dead philosopher (from a place since captured by another country that is busy with ethnic cleansing)

I know there was a consensus for tagging lots of talk pages, but isn't there a more efficient way to boost awareness of Wikipedia's norms about COI? The links at the left of every page, the Article Wizard, the talk page templates for WikiProject Companies or WikiProject Business, or an edit notice shown to new editors come to mind. —rybec 00:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think now that more interested editors have been identified, we should revisit the topic at Idea Lab. No consensus is ever final and it's not as if every word and the exact application of the tag has such overwhelming consensus it should not be discussed further. CorporateM (Talk) 00:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

edit

I was thinking as we get responses from the trial, we could collect concerns and discussion points below in order to create a post at Idea Lab, get additional input from those that have shown an interest and re-engage the original participants. Thoughts? CorporateM (Talk) 01:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Idea Lab?

An idea that started in Ideal Lab later obtained consensus at Wikipedia:Proposals by editors from both sides of "the aisle" on COI issues to create a short template that provides straightforward advice to editors with a COI and to place that template on a trial basis on the Talk page of articles on extant organizations.

The idea is that editors with a COI are much more likely to see, read and understand a two-sentence template right at the article than to read our policy pages. Jimmy Wales mentioned a similar concept here: "I'd like to see every company article and biography article tagged with a very simple "If you are the subject of this article, or in some way work for the subject of this article, and you think it needs to be improved CLICK HERE and follow these steps." The COI wizard I started but never finished is also along these lines.

However, more discussion and brainstorming is needed on if, how, where and when to use Template:COI editnotice. As the trial has rolled out, several concerns have emerged that need more discussion:

  1. Should it be stern or polite? What is the current tone and what tone should it have?
  2. What should the exact text of the template be?
  3. Should it be placed on Talk of every article about extant organizations under the assumption that a sufficient number of them have a COI looking at it, or only added to articles where COI has already been a problem?

Has a further discussion started anywhere and, if so, could we have a link? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can get one started. CorporateM (Talk) 20:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a discussion at Idea Lab here. CorporateM (Talk) 20:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion seems to have petered out. What's next? Josh Parris 10:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@CorporateM: ^ Theopolisme (talk) 11:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Argh, good question. I felt in that particular discussion, there was reasonable consensus for the template as-is without changes, but not enough support for it being applied automatically with a BOT. There was prior support for BOT-use in a discussion that had far more votes/participation. Sooooo.... I don't know. CorporateM (Talk) 11:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think of VPI as a good place to shoot down dumb ideas (the idea was not shot down in flames), and VPR as a place for asking explicit questions that have some backing. Try over at WP:VPR. Josh Parris 11:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to say: get VPR to offer an opinion as to where to go next - can the task, or go ahead? Josh Parris 12:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am a little timid seeing that it is more controversial than I originally thought it would be. I am a frequent COI contributor myself, but I've helped improve our Request Edit templates and developed a more understandable version of WP:COI, both of which a lot of editors use. Some editors are applying this COI editnotice template manually as well. Even though I'm just trying to help, somewhere down the line someone that doesn't like the proposal will be screaming that I have a COI with COI. I might just let it languish and if there is interest in it, someone might pick it up. Leave it half-finished like most of Wikipedia ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 12:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I'll do it. Josh Parris 06:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tumbleweeds. Josh Parris 09:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly some people got all het up about this at some point. Can't you rally someone to voice some kind of opinion of this? I'm concerned that there was no metric developed to measure success or failure. Either get someone caring, or I'm pulling this BRfA due to lack of support. Josh Parris 09:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Posted at Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#COI_templating_bot. Theopolisme (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tumbleweeds, again. Josh Parris 01:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can convince someone at Special:ListUsers/accountcreator to editnotice the 500 pages, that would give you some data to move forward with, otherwise this is looking dead due to a deafening lack of interest. As it stands right now, I'm planning on listing this BRfA as expired, so that it's easy to re-open in the future. Josh Parris 01:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no qualms with that -- if there is interest again in the future, the code will still be here. Theopolisme (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Request Expired. without prejudice to reopening. Josh Parris 03:26, 16 November 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_26&oldid=1138383897"