On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Trey Jones <tjo...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> So, if the community of bot creators is generally responsive to changes to
> the API and default behavior,

Some are, many aren't. Some bots are run by people who barely understand
the code, because they took it over from a now-retired user—this is the
result of "find[ing] those bots new homes". Others are run by people who
are still active in a sense but lack the time or motivation to make many

User scripts and gadgets can be in an even worse situation, as the original
maintainer may have retired leaving *no* replacement while others continue
to use the script.

> I also feel like humans users expect and deserve the best results we can
> give them, so I lean more towards making the change the default.

In a sense there are no "human users" of the API. It's always programs of
some sort using it to fetch data to then reformat for display to humans.

In a different sense, of course, there are human users, but not the ones
you're probably thinking of. These users are the programmers who create
these programs. But I don't think this change would be as useful as the
recent continuation change, and particularly I don't think it's useful
enough to justify the amount of work that would be required to properly
communicate it.

> A more complex and more general approach might be to version the API...
> though that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

See T41592, particularly the reasons given for declining it.

Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
Senior Software Engineer
Wikimedia Foundation
Wikimedia-search mailing list

Reply via email to