> Would it be that hard to keep track of users' contribution levels, and Yes. It actually would be. 1) you need to program bots to be aware of "users' contribution levels" 2) You need to write, maintain and translate multiple levels of messages.
Boils down to my main point (don't worry David Gerard did not read it either): We do not have the resources for that. > It's vaguely insulting > when some noob's first bot gives me a long lecture about Commons policy, > apparently unaware that I had a hand in formulating it in the first place! How should the bot know? Sorry, but you ''chose'' to be insulted... ...by a machine! Even if it had been an actual human who had put the message, I would argue that again the problem is the lack of resources. Right now the focus is on keeping commons on track of its mission. That means zero tolerance for unfree files. Do i think the situation is ideal. No, of course not. But a few people jabbering around on a mailing list, making demands and essentially dispatching non existing resources, will not change a thing. This is a bit like politicians trying to improve the education system, but trying to do so without budget increases. And I'm not talking about money here (in fact I think Gnangarras "paying the admins" suggestion is the worst possible approach possible, but thats an entire other mail). The fact of the matter is commons has a bad reputation on the other projects, that's why we don't get more active contributors. That's why we don't have the manpower to cater to the emotionally sensitive among you. However the bad reputation does not come from cold harsh bot templates. It comes from the fact that people are "just not getting commons". Wikipedia contributors see files being moved to commons by well meaning people and deleted because they do not fulfill our free licensing requirements. Contributors from foreign language (i.e. non-english) projects then feel unable to participate in the process involving the deletions. Just like that commons gets a reputation as content destroyer and local uploads get tagged with ''don't move to commons''. Seen it a dozen times on de.wp (maybe i'm generalizing...) It is a vicious cycle, but you guys are trying to break it at the wrong point. it reminds me of overworked and underpaid wallmart cashiers that are mandated to greet customers friendly... or they will get fired, or the flight attendants who have mandatory smile-training. I'm all for being nice and friendly, but when there is work to be done, and the question is "writing a personalized message and taking care of one copyvio" or "pasting five templates and taking care of five copyvios" the answer seems to be obviously #2 for me. Breaking the cycle should start at firmly educating users about how commons works, what we do, and where our priorities lie. Add a page about bot and how the truly and honestly do not mean to hurt your feelings. _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
