| Revision as of 19:28, 7 January 2007 editH (talk | contribs)23,582 edits my 2 cents← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:30, 7 January 2007 edit undoH (talk | contribs)23,582 edits →Someone please explain to me...: moreNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| : There is no WP:BEANS here. This is nothing that couldn't be done with the freely and openly available pywikipedia framework. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] )</span> 19:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | : There is no WP:BEANS here. This is nothing that couldn't be done with the freely and openly available pywikipedia framework. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] )</span> 19:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::I agree, pywikipedia framwork, the perl wikimedia module, or just plain html scripting can get the same results. The functions this bot performs are not difficult to reproduce. I read the source, I see no reason to keep it a secret, but I respect the authors right to do so. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 19:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | ::I agree, pywikipedia framwork, the perl wikimedia module, or just plain html scripting can get the same results. The functions this bot performs are not difficult to reproduce. What's more, the code would not be able to perform admin functions on a non-admin account anyways, so it is really just the recursive unprotected template/image finder. If the bot is functioning, then this list of unprotected pages will not be a threat. I read the source, I see no reason to keep it a secret, but I respect the authors right to do so. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 19:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 19:30, 7 January 2007
Someone please explain to me...
Why can't the source code be revealed? AWB would require much less modification to be an effective vandalbot, and its source is freely available to anyone who cares. -Amarkov edits 18:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure, I have read it and it seems to be safe releasing the source. HighInBC 18:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
If Dragons flight released the source, I would withdraw my opposition. My only significant beef is the needless secrecy. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Dragons flight has stated (see comment under Oppose #1), "The code has been released to trusted members of the community for review, but it will not be made public. I feel the risk of people adapting certain functions to create powerful vandalbots is too great." Perhaps other users who have seen and reviewed the code can comment on this issue. This seems a plausible concern to me but an even bigger concern to me is that releasing the code would allow the vandals to try to reverse-engineer ways around it (compare WP:BEANS). Newyorkbrad 19:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- There is no WP:BEANS here. This is nothing that couldn't be done with the freely and openly available pywikipedia framework. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, pywikipedia framwork, the perl wikimedia module, or just plain html scripting can get the same results. The functions this bot performs are not difficult to reproduce. What's more, the code would not be able to perform admin functions on a non-admin account anyways, so it is really just the recursive unprotected template/image finder. If the bot is functioning, then this list of unprotected pages will not be a threat. I read the source, I see no reason to keep it a secret, but I respect the authors right to do so. HighInBC 19:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)