Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SpeakerBot

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

Withdrawn by operator.

SpeakerBot

Operator: Andewz111 (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): PHP

Source code available: Soon

Function overview: Find articles that a spoken version is over 120 days old and put on the talk page that the page needs an updated spoken version

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): On WikiProject Speech: see discussion below

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: some what plenty, but will rate limit to 15 articles per 30 days

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

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

Function details: Trivial: see function details above

Discussion

I am bit concerned about the concept in itself, what's the point of having TTS spoken articles :S If one would want just to have a TTS, he could do it on the fly client-side, as suggested at WP:SPOKEN. Unless there is some consensus and discussion on this, which the operator has not linked, I'm not really inclined favorably toward this. Also, the operator has been active for about two weeks on this project. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 06:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Having a machine read the article kind of defeats the purpose of having spoken articles. --Chris 06:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It helps to relieve the stress upon human speakers. Even if there's a lot of them... Also, my account was created 12 August, and I made a few sporadic edits. This is just the more active part. Getting off of that, the bot runs client-side and not on a server. Another idea is to have people verify if the bot did it's job. For most of its task bot rights won't be needed. I know the disadvantages as well: yet there is quite a few advantages too. Andewz111 (no 'r') (nudge me) 06:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then a consensus at the wikiproject could help. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 07:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

point 3. Also, how does this differ from Wikipedia:Pediaphon? --Chris 07:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spoken_Wikipedia#Need_to_reach_a_consensus_about_a_bot. Also, this bot generates OGG files for upload on Wikipedia. Andewz111 (no 'r') (nudge me) 07:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or I can repurpose this bot. Basically, it can look for articles that have a spoken version older than 120 days, and put them up for another spoken translation. But the bot would run forever. Changing information section. I'm repurposing and changing the language to PHP. Andewz111 (no 'r') (nudge me) 07:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC) Will do the same w/the request on WikiProject Speech.[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Andewz111 (no 'r') (nudge me) 19:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC) (sorry, just needed it)[reply]

I think the new task could be an acceptable bot task, if the spoken Wikipedia project wants it, but, I don't think that number of days is a very good metric to use here. It is entirely possible for an article to go several months with no significant changes. Age in days could be a good starting point, but I think it should try to compare the version of the article from around the time the spoken version was made to the current version to see if there's a significant difference. It could look at size changes or number of edits, or actually look at a diff or calculate an edit distance. Also, why only 0.5 edits/day? Mr.Z-man 02:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea right here. It may come in later iterations. Andewz111 (talk · contribs) (typo intended) 22:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Andewz111 (talk · contribs) (typo intended) 01:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Any update? It's been several days and I'm not withdrawing. Andewz111 (talk · contribs) (typo intended) 01:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I share the same concerns as MrZMan; an arbitrary length of time is too simplistic; we can't just re-record articles every four months. If this is all the bot is to do, I'd prefer to see that implemented as a report. Josh Parris 02:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, this bot would probably help with the other duties of the Spoken articles WikiProject. Andewz111 (talk · contribs) (typo intended) 23:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These other functions you speak of aren't detailed. What are they? Josh Parris 09:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, that is up to the wikiproject. Andewz111 (talk · contribs) (typo intended) 19:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're not going to get approval for a bot with unspecified functionality. Perhaps you could come back with details? Josh Parris 02:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand, but is the first task. A dicussion on the spoken articles wikiproject will ensue. Andewz111 (talk · contribs) (typo intended) 19:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Andewz111 (talk · contribs) (typo intended) 16:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not approving without community consensus, as established on the noted wikiproject or elsewhere. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've bumped the wikiproject. Andewz111 (talk · contribs) (typo intended) 01:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you still plan on having it tag articles 120 days old, or were you going to change that? CrimsonBlue (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was going to change to an edit distance. Andewz111 (talk · contribs) (typo intended) 13:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your consensus doesn't seem to be building. I suggest you build your bot and have it list pages at User:SpeakerBot/re-record; The bot can edit pages in its own userspace without BAG approval, and you could even transclude the list somewhere on the Spoken Wikipedia WikiProject. Get feedback on the list from users on the WikiProject. Once you've built up their enthusiasm, come here a get permission to edit outside of the bot's own pages. Josh Parris 06:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you give me permission to do bot tasks inside userspace (alas approved for trial inside userspace)? Andewz111 (talk · contribs) (typo intended) 21:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not approved for trial, but you're free to run it in your userspace. You don't need our approval or consensus for the userspace. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 04:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I filed another BFRA: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SpeakerBot 2. Also {{BAGAssistanceNeeded}}. Andrewz111 (typo intended) (let me know) 14:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What assistance do you require? Josh Parris 02:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just ensuring that this is still not in the trash :) Puffy (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you built a consensus yet? Josh Parris 11:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still none. Puffy _{fish penguins} 19:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comment on the other BRFA, It seems although Andrew has the best of intentions, this has been filed prematurly. The lack of input at WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia regarding this bot is a disappointment, but a project specific bot cannot be approved without it. It may be worth while declining this for now and revisiting it when and if Andrew gains some form of input. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 10:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Likely no consensus, like Promethan said. I withdraw. Open The Windows, sir! 16:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator.

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.