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 The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by operator.

EditCountBot[edit]

Operator: EdoDodo (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python (using Pywikipedia)

Source code available: A first draft, lacking error checking, splitting into functions, etc. but demonstrates the functionality of the bot.

Function overview: The basic function of this bot is to complete a template of the editcount of a user, for use by other templates and userboxes that take the editcount of a user as a parameter, thus creating automatically updating editcount userboxes.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): The bot will be making non-controversial edits, so discussion is not necessary. Ongoing discussion here.

Edit period(s): Runs to update all the edit counts at non-peak times (Frequency open for discussion, daily? weekly?)

Estimated number of pages affected: Depends on how many users wish to have an edit count kept update, initially probably only a few userpages.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

Function details:

The basic function of this bot is to complete a template of the editcount of a user, for use by other templates and userboxes that take the editcount of a user as a parameter, thus creating automatically updating editcount userboxes.

There are plenty of userboxes that use the editcount of a user, such as:

One example of a user that would have liked such a bot can be seen here (found by accident while I was searching to see if such a bot already existed).

I have provided a first draft of the code, this is currently lacking error checking and still has a few bugs when functioning under certain non-regular conditions (automatic editcounts for different users on the same page), but it shows the basic functioning of the program. - EdoDodo talk 18:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Is this bot really useful? Those who want to see (rather than display) edit counts can already see them. There is no need for a bot for that. PleaseStand (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, for simply viewing an edit count scripts such as that could be useful, but this script has, at least in my opinion, numerous advantages over this:
  • You can make everyone see it on your user page, without them having to install scripts or have javascript enabled
  • This would allow a user who chooses to place it on his page to show it, customized as he wishes
  • Since this information can be processed by templates it allows calculations to be done with it (for example the service award template automatically selects an appropriate service award, the userbox one colors the userbox differently depending on the number of edts, etc.)
So, in my opinion, having this bot allows for far more customization by users and template designers than any other solution (scripts, etc.) possibly could. - EdoDodo talk 20:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I hadn't thought about that, it would indeed reduce the load on the server since only one page would have to be edited instead of hundreds. Thanks for the suggestion! - EdoDodo talk 20:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To keep the size of the page down (minimize load time), you might want to consider splitting the page up. There are two different ways to do this (both ideas I thought of for a talkback bot proposal).
  1. Split it up alphabetically, optionally using a main template with a switch statement that calls the appropriate subtemplate for the user name. For example, you could split it into ten pages: 1) 0-3, 2) 4-7, 3) 8-B, 4) C-F, 5) G-J, 6) K-N, 7) O-R, 8) S-V, 9) W-Z, and 10) other first characters. The user of the edit count data would only need to know the username, since ((User:EditCountBot/Count|PleaseStand)) would call ((User:EditCountBot/Count/7|PleaseStand)).
  2. Hash the username (e.g. with MD5 or SHA1). Split the page up into 16 pages according to the first hex digit. The user needs to know the MD5/SHA1 hash of the username in addition to the username itself, but the bot could do this for the user by replacing a transclusion of the form ((User:EditCountBot/Count|PleaseStand)) with ((User:EditCountBot/Count/a|PleaseStand)).
You would not have to actually check the contents of the transclusions for the user name; we could presume that if a user adds such a template to his page, he wants the bot to include his edit count in the list. PleaseStand (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed splitting the page up would reduce the load, and it is an excellent idea, but even so it may still be possible that (as mentioned below) parsing a switch statement and a large template every time the page is loaded might put more load on the servers than a weekly edit to update it. - EdoDodo talk 05:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and declare that I'm opposed on the grounds that it encourages editcountitis. Sorry, I appreciate there is a purpose to it, but I think it's better not to do it. Rd232 talk 20:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second RD232. Also, we should turn on mw:Extension:EditCount if we want to do this, instead of a bot. Bring it to VPR if you want to peruse it. Tim1357 talk 21:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned earlier at the VPR I agree that this would be a better solution, and if it was enabled it would certainly eliminate the need for this bot, but I don't think it will. Also, I don't think that using that solution would put less load on the server, if anything it may put more (one edit per week OR one editcount check every time the page is loaded), although of course edit edit count would then be truly real time, instead of just updated weekly. - EdoDodo talk 05:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I'm also leaning toward oppose. I understand the utility of this bot if updating edit counts is desired, but I don't understand the benefit to updating edit counts. Either users care enough to update edit counts manually, or they don't care and thus don't display/update them. Escalating editcountitis also seems like a valid concern and I can't see how this bot would work to improve the encyclopedia, especially not enough to justify that negative. As also mentioned at , the edit count is already available in user preferences (is that what user.editCount() returns?) and it may be easier to have a magic word; I have been under the assumption that this variable is not readily available for a reason, such as to not put much weight on edit counts. —Ost (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well a lot of users do like showing an updated edit count on their userpage, and unfortunately they have to update this manually which is a waste of time for them. The aim of this bot is to automate this process that many users want to do regularly and save them them time. I don't think too much weight should be given to edit counts, and in my opinion this bot wouldn't add any more weight to them (what differences does it make if it's updated manually or automatically?) but I think this bot would would be useful to a lot of people. It should not be forgotten that while userboxes may make up a large part of the edits this bot makes there are other things that it may very well do, for example requests for permissions/admin or administrators' noticeboard things (incidents, edit war reports, wikiquette alerts, etc.) could be accompanied by an edit count generated by this bot, to give someone viewing them a rough idea of the experience of the editor(s) involved. Although of course this just gives a very broad idea (one edit could be fixing a reference just like it could be creating a featured article) I think it would still be helpful, and we should not think of the purpose of this bot as limited to userboxes. - EdoDodo talk 07:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think that if anything this would discourage continuous checking of edit count – if you know that yours userbox/service award will automatically be updated it becomes unnecessary to check your edit count continuously. But that's just my opinion. - EdoDodo talk 21:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting thought, but that rationale purports that the reason people look at edit counts is to update their counter, as opposed to people updating their counter because they looked at their count. I look at my edit count occasionally, but I don't even have a counter to update on my page. I suspect others check their edit counts for their own reasons and that this behavior wouldn't change even with this bot because the update delay would still give editor's reason to check edit counts between updates. —Ost (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... Well I guess it depends on why people are looking at their edit count. Personally when I look at it it is to see if I have qualified for the next service award, so this bot would eliminate my need to look at my edit count. - EdoDodo talk 05:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, article-space edits are what matter. The MediaWiki API's edit count, used for the purpose of autoconfirmation, does not care about namespace. If you want to get article-space edits only, I think you would need a Toolserver account. PleaseStand (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that article-space edits are far more important, and if it was possible I would certainly like my bot to count only this (perhaps as default behavior with an option to count all?). The thing I'm worried about is that it may involve going through the edits to check which ones were article-space edits, and this would probably vastly increase the load on the server. I'll look into it and if it's possible without putting significantly more load on the server then I'll certainly implement it. - EdoDodo talk 05:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the editcountitis issues. Note that using a big #switch just shifts the load around. Rather than making one edit to update a hardcoded value or a simple template, the servers have to parse some massive template every time they parse each userpage that uses it. If this is done, it should run rather infrequently, weekly at most. While it may only be a few users initially, it could easily grow to several hundred, if not thousand. Mr.Z-man 02:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is not necessary to run such a low-prority task daily, I'm sure most users would be happy with weekly or even less frequent updates. As for how it should work if it is approved then I will discuss this with other programmers so we can decide what solution would put less load on the servers. - EdoDodo talk 05:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just rather it not turn into something like Template:Toolserver which has nearly 20k revisions because people are lazy. Q T C 05:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rd232 and oppose the introduction of a bot that helps to encourage the view that it is better to make five similar edits to an article, rather than one edit with the five similar changes. If people want a "my edit count" userbox, fine. It's also sort-of fine if people want a significant portion of their edits to be updates to their user page. But it's not fine to provide bots that may be interpreted by some as an endorsement of the practice. Johnuniq (talk) 07:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This reeks of the ill fated User:StatusBot. Which as you would recall was blocked by the developer's for being a waste of system resources. This bot seems to follow the same principle (i.e. making edits solely so that other can have a conveniently updated status/edit count on their user page). I move the bot be declined on both the previous precedent set by status bot and the extra issue that it encourages editcountitis. --Chris 08:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I was not aware of this bot, and I can see it being fairly similar in its usefulness and edit quantity, although this bot will probably make significantly less edits (a status tracker needs to edit a lot more regularly to get something close to real time, for an edit counter daily or weekly edits would be more than sufficient). - EdoDodo talk 09:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that User:StatusBot probably had to run all the time, including during peak times, whilst this bot could be scheduled to run at non-peak times when server load would not be an issue. - EdoDodo talk 09:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, the principle behind the bot stays the same. The outcome does not justify the resources used. --Chris 09:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Withdrawn by operator. Okay, well after discussion with other editors it seems clear that this bot does not have consensus and I too am leaning towards agreeing that this would put too much weight on edit counts, so I am withdrawing my request. - EdoDodo talk 20:18, 13 May 2010 (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.
Category