Humanity needs bots to save the world's knowledge from humanity.

March 23, 2014 5:10 PM

Wikipedia is edited by bots. That's a good thing.
posted by paleyellowwithorange (33 comments total)

Newsweek is written by bots, too. Not bad.
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 5:16 PM on March 23, 2014 [3 favorites]

But are they sexy bots?
posted by dannyboybell at 5:24 PM on March 23, 2014 [1 favorite]

Sadly, most bots are never programmed to love.
posted by blue_beetle at 5:28 PM on March 23, 2014 [7 favorites]

I heard that they could be programmed in a wide variety of techniques, though.
posted by nubs at 5:36 PM on March 23, 2014 [1 favorite]

Metafilter: Edited by bots, and that's a h3r$v2h@re%^ah*&^$jv CARRIER LOST
posted by Horace Rumpole at 5:39 PM on March 23, 2014 [6 favorites]

I've noticed an increase in bots on reddit as well. It's interesting how useful they can be, like giving a summary of a wikipedia reference. They can also be subversive in unexpected ways, such as allowing 'tipping' users for particular comments that becomes a sort of 'super up voting.'

The future is a strange place.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:40 PM on March 23, 2014

Get your digits off me you damned dirty bot!
posted by yoink at 5:41 PM on March 23, 2014 [2 favorites]

Pretty sure I haven't seen any Newsweek articles in the last month, but this is paywalled for me.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:43 PM on March 23, 2014 [4 favorites]

A copyeditor creating a headline saying that a free, volunteer-run encyclopedia is edited by bots is a very sad thing indeed.
posted by Chaussette and the Pussy Cats at 5:56 PM on March 23, 2014 [1 favorite]

They can also be subversive in unexpected ways, such as allowing 'tipping' users for particular comments that becomes a sort of 'super up voting.'

There's a bot out now directly tipping in proportion to upvotes received.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 5:57 PM on March 23, 2014 [1 favorite]

Pretty sure I haven't seen any Newsweek articles in the last month, but this is paywalled for me.

Same here.
posted by Pudhoho at 5:58 PM on March 23, 2014

Thirded.
posted by JHarris at 6:15 PM on March 23, 2014

Works for me, but my default useragent is GoogleBot precisely to deal with news sites and the like.
posted by jaduncan at 6:18 PM on March 23, 2014 [3 favorites]

Hm. It works for me on my phone (Firefox) and on my PC (Firefox with no add-ons except HTTPS Everywhere). I don't ever recall getting blocked from Newsweek for exceeding pageviews - that seems to be only a problem with the New York Times.
posted by paleyellowwithorange at 6:21 PM on March 23, 2014

Victims of an A/B-Paywall-Test-Bot?
posted by kaibutsu at 6:23 PM on March 23, 2014 [2 favorites]

Heh. As long as the GoogleBot can read and index the article for posterity, that's the most important thing, right?
posted by paleyellowwithorange at 6:25 PM on March 23, 2014

It can't be cookies. I tried logging in using Chrome Incognito and it still paywalled me. I even tried several proxy servers and it failed. And it certainly isn't from usage since I was unaware Newsweek still existed...
posted by jim in austin at 6:27 PM on March 23, 2014 [1 favorite]

Considering how useful some of the bots are for Wikipedia, it seems odd that these are all run by volunteers, and the WikiMedia foundation hasn't developed any of their own.
posted by KGMoney at 6:31 PM on March 23, 2014

I've noticed an increase in bots on reddit as well. It's interesting how useful they can be

I'm always excited to see a bot mid-thread on Reddit - whether its content is useful or just humorous, it always makes my eyes widen in wonder at the value-addition they make to the conversation.
posted by paleyellowwithorange at 7:06 PM on March 23, 2014

Why does That Formatting in Newsweek irritate me so much?
posted by Melismata at 7:40 PM on March 23, 2014

I'm always excited to see a bot mid-thread on Reddit - whether its content is useful or just humorous, it always makes my eyes widen in wonder at the value-addition they make to the conversation.

They are smarter and funnier than approximately 85% of the humans that post there.
posted by louche mustachio at 8:07 PM on March 23, 2014 [3 favorites]

The one time I saw a bot on reddit that really backfired, it was a grammar correction bot that came in after a user had spilled her heart out in TwoXChromosomes (or maybe TrollX?) to tell her the proper use of their vs. they're. The whole thread turned on the bot and started insulting it. With intentionally bad grammar.
posted by ocherdraco at 8:13 PM on March 23, 2014 [9 favorites]

Considering how useful some of the bots are for Wikipedia, it seems odd that these are all run by volunteers, and the WikiMedia foundation hasn't developed any of their own.

Why should they? Users develop and run them for them and Administrators can control the user bots.
posted by srboisvert at 8:45 PM on March 23, 2014

Why should they? Users develop and run them for them and Administrators can control the user bots.

The best business model is to get your users to do all the work. Valve is a master of this:

-users make mods, Valve gets rich.
-one free-to-play business model is taking a cut off sales of user-created cosmetic items.
-Curating games getting to be a hassle? Let the users greenlight them.
-Valve can accept cryptocurrency without lifting a finger or bearing any risk because many Redditors will happily sell you Steam codes / "gifts" for such payment.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 9:17 PM on March 23, 2014 [1 favorite]

They took our jerbs.
posted by dobie at 11:56 PM on March 23, 2014 [1 favorite]

I too was given the "You already read 5 Newsweek articles!" nonsense, using Google Chrome. No problems in IE or Opera. Scroogled again! BUT BY WHOM WAS I SCROOGLED
posted by lordaych at 3:59 AM on March 24, 2014

You can't just "take" a jerb. That's a myth. You have to terk a jerb. Or mechanically turk a jerb.
posted by lordaych at 4:01 AM on March 24, 2014 [1 favorite]

The other side of this is that more than half of internet traffic is bots. So Wikipedia is basically by bots, for bots.
posted by graymouser at 5:55 AM on March 24, 2014

The other side of this is that more than half of internet traffic is bots.

So, at least some of them are watching YouTube and Netflix.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:26 AM on March 24, 2014

Valve is a master of this

Valve is as entertaining as some of their games, and their approach to monetization is pretty creative. Pretty soon every RL interaction is going to involve trading for something strange!
posted by sneebler at 6:36 AM on March 24, 2014

detecting vandalism--kids replacing George Washington’s name with lower body organs

Thanks, Newsweek. Now I'm going though all the Presidents' names trying to come up with the best "lower body organ" name for each one. My favorite so far is #8, Martin Vas Deferens. Obviously.
posted by phunniemee at 8:48 AM on March 24, 2014 [2 favorites]

Ha! Warren Gamaliel Hard-on is also not bad.

Does William Jefferson Clit-fun work? Of course, G.W. and G.H.W. Bush need no alteration.
posted by ocherdraco at 11:55 AM on March 24, 2014

In other news: Wikipedia founder calls alt-medicine practitioners “lunatic charlatans.” Wales to activists who want new rules for Wikipedia: "No, you have to be kidding me."
posted by homunculus at 11:45 AM on March 27, 2014 [1 favorite]