Bot FAQ
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.
In response to ongoing questions from editors who are trying to figure out how to manipulate the owner of a particular bot, the following FAQ is humbly offered:
Contents |
[edit] Really?
Q: I got a notice about a missing Fair Use Rationale (FUR) on a non-free image that I uploaded. I don't think this is important. How do I convince the owner that I'm too busy or important to provide proper FURs?
A: As far as we can tell, nobody has ever succeeded with this task. The most common approach is to spend a couple of hours writing long, hyperbolic messages to the bot's owner's talk page to explain why you don't have two minutes to fix the FUR on the image. References to at least one of the following are considered de rigeur by fans of the art form: fascism, nitpicking, systemic injustice, favoritism, and anti-corporate activism. Double points for including the phrase "first up against the wall when the revolution comes".
Q: You're kidding, right?
A: Not really. As far as the Watchers can tell, the bot's owner has never agreed that any editor is too busy or important to meet his or her obligations under the NFCC policy. For that matter, nobody's ever convinced the Wikimedia Foundation of this, either, or a U.S. federal court. For proof that people have tried (at least with the bot's owner), there are hundreds of such messages in archives. If you'd like to become the thousand-and-first editor to attempt this, then go ahead: The bot's owner appears to be very experienced at ignoring such messages on his talk page.
Q: I probably won't even get a response? How about I complain that the bot's notice is terse and unfriendly?
A: What did you expect? "Hi there, I'm Eddie, your shipboard computer, and I'm feeling just great, guys, but there seems to be an eensy-weensy problem with the Vogon copyrights"?
We agree that the notices are, shall we say, directly to the point, with no possibility of anyone thinking that this is a friendly message that's safely ignored. There is certainly no shillyshallying or indication that the script loves and appreciates your noble efforts. If you feel vindicated by our agreement, then we will go so far as to suspect that the bot's owner himself might rate the promotion of WikiLove at least slightly lower than clarity, efficacy, and legality. Complaints that editors have had their self-esteem threatened by receiving notice of a copyright violation are regularly posted on the bot's owner's talk page and are believed to provide entertainment for a disreputable group of Watchers. If you're lucky, some other editor will sympathize with you for a while. Do not be fooled by these soft words: sympathy changes nothing about your copyright problem. Besides, the sympathizer is probably another editor in the same fix, and is hoping to use you.
Q: And it uses the word media as a mass noun instead of as the plural of medium!
A: So? It's not the ancient use of this word, but it is accepted in modern English.
[edit] Oooh
Q: Wait, what's a Watcher?
A: An editor who hangs out on the bot's owner's talk page. Nothing's ever been proven, but we suspect they make smart remarks to their computer screens about the people who post long-winded messages there, and cheer for the bot's owner whenever his response is more informative and pointful than, say, soothing.
Q: That's mean!
A: Not really, as long as they keep it to themselves.
[edit] Don't get any of this on you
Q: Listen, there are all these complaints here! Surely that means there's a problem. "Where there's smoke, there's fire," you know.
A: Sure there's a problem: There are all these editors who think a FUR is optional (ahem).
Q: No, I mean that Wikipedia editors would never complain if they felt sufficiently loved and appreciated. People never complain about having to comply with policies if you just approach them the right way.
A: What were you smoking again? I mean, do you have any policy pages or guideline pages on your watchlist? Never mind: What you need to know right now is that arguing with the bot's owner about copyright violations is a waste of your time. You are permitted to attempt it, and if you are particularly clever (or especially stupid) about it, you may bring some small amount of joy to some of the Watchers, but, in terms of accomplishing any reasonable goal, like fixing your copyright problem, or convincing the bot's owner to make the bot stop flagging noncompliant images, it's a complete and utter waste of your time.
Q: Let's say I skip the arguing and posturing stage. Any suggestions on how I can make the bot's owner do my work write a FUR for me?
A: As far as we can tell, it can't be done. The official policies -- mandatory policies, not optional guidelines -- for nonfree images say that you, as the uploading editor, are responsible for providing a FUR for the non-free images you uploaded. As far as the Watchers can tell, the bot's owner interprets you as meaning you, the specific person who uploaded the image, but in practice seems willing to let editors such as yourself interpret you more broadly, for example as meaning any Wikipedia editor except the bot's owner.
Q: Why can't the bot just make up a FUR for me?
A: Because the bot doesn't know anything about the image. Neither does the bot's owner. A complete FUR includes information about the source of the image. Just where did you get that image from? Surely you don't expect the bot (or any other editor) to magically know the answer to that question. We're talking about a really simple script here, not a nearly omniscient, psychic robot.
Q: Well, it's not very nice of him.
A: Neither is violating someone's copyright (ahem).
[edit] Five stages of grief
Q: So what are my options?
A: Anything you like. You can edit the image to provide a compliant FUR. You can post a useless complaint. You can waste time at the bot approval board by trying to get the bot shut down for doing exactly what it was approved to do. You can start a campaign to have the Wikimedia Foundation change their copyright policies. You can try to get all of the world's copyright laws scrapped. You can do nothing. A notice from the bot does not force you to do anything at all.
Q: But the notice said that if I didn't add a FUR, then my image will be deleted!
A: True, true: You are allowed to make that choice. If it's really important to you that your image have no FUR, then that's your choice. the bot's owner just wants you to know that it's Wikipedia's choice to delete non-free images without a FUR. Isn't it kind of the bot's owner to let you know about the problem, so that you have an opportunity to fix the problem?
Q: Deleted in just a week!
A: True, true: That's what the Wikimedia Foundation's policy says. The notice from the bot accurately reflects the policy.
Q: But no one has ever complained about my image before! It's been up for months!
A: Guess there's a first time for everything, huh?
Q: But I uploaded, like, six of these images, and there are all of these big, nasty notes on my talk page! This'll take forever!
A: Probably about ten minutes, if you don't count time wasted on the bot's owner's talk page.
[edit] Comprehension dawns
Q: Huh? Wasted time?
A: Yes, wasted time. As far as we can make out, complaining at the bot's owner does not solve any copyright problems whatsoever. He does not control either the copyright policies or the relevant laws. He's not even an admin. He just wrote a script that lets everyone know that there's a problem with the nonfree image you uploaded. Fussing at the bot's owner is like trying to disconnect the fire alarm instead of putting out the fire.
[edit] But only dimly
Q: If he didn't go around noticing that I skipped the FUR, then this wouldn't be happening!
A: Partly true: If no one noticed, then this wouldn't be happening -- right up until sloppy enforcement of copyright policy got the whole encyclopedia shut down for a lawsuit. Wikipedia cannot afford to turn a blind eye to copyright violations. It's one of the few problems that could actually destroy the encyclopedia.
[edit] Before it's snuffed out
Q: But I'm all upset and want to vent!
A: May we suggest talking to a brick wall? The Watchers guarantee that it's at least as effective as leaving a message for the bot's owner.
[edit] Civility is a virtue
Q: You're not being very sympathetic here.
A: Sorry, did you want sympathy? Post any of the following on your talk page, and pretend we said it:
- You poor thing!
- Such an unfeeling world!
- What I say is, people need to work together.
- Who do they think they are!
- Policy, schmolicy! People should be more sensible than that.
- The injustice of it all!
- Can't believe Wikipedia's expecting an editor as valuable as you to comply with the law.
- So unfair!
- Perfectly dreadful the way people are these days.
Did that help? No? Well, we tried.
Q: I don't like the bot's owner or his bot!
A: Whether or not the bot's owner cares about your opinion of his WikiLove skills is opaque to us. After extensive interviews, we are, however, quite certain that the bot doesn't mind.
Q: I'm going to report you!
A: For what? For being inadequately sympathetic? For not being susceptible to social engineering? For your convenience, we suggest trying this page for attitude complaints. If you are technologically adept, then the NULL device has the advantage of being less taxing on the servers.
[edit] Hope for the future
Q: Okay, okay, so basically the problem is that I have no clue what a FUR is or how to fix this problem.
A: Ah. The bot's owner would likely tell you that it's very easy and all laid out in this short, simple policy. However, we will also point you to some examples that were collected by a very nice editor (i.e., not us). If you click on the images and the FUR section in each of them, you'll see a few excellent explanations. Because we are feeling uncharacteristically generous, we will also give you two hints:
- You have to write a separate FUR for every single article that uses a nonfree image.
- The same image cannot be both nonfree and free (although the wiki software will cheerfully let you place both tags on an image).
Q: So I read the policy, and I can't write a FUR because there isn't a good rationale. What should I do?
A: Then kiss your image goodbye, because it's going to be deleted.
Q: Can't I just use it anyway? I really like it!
A: No.
Q: Is there anything that the bot's owner does want to hear about?
A: Yes:
- If there's a nonfree image with a perfectly good, complete FUR, and the bot has incorrectly flagged it as not having a FUR, then post a message with a complete explanation of the situation. The bot has an "ignore" list for special cases. You are hereby warned that many of these alleged special cases do not actually have valid FURs. If you're worried that the Watchers will be snickering at your request, then read the policy and then ask an editor on its talk page to help you double check your image before requesting an addition to the ignore list.
- If the bot is doing something wildly inappropriate (especially if it's not related to nonfree images), then please post a message. Its owner appears to be promptly responsive to these messages. Make sure that your problem report cannot possibly be rephrased as I do not want the bot to do the task it is supposed to do, even by the most creative and determined Watchers.
[edit] Never mind
Q: But all these people are seriously offended!
A: By reality?
