| ▲ | bryan0 10 hours ago |
| Hey I'm the owner. I would just recommend you shouldn't believe everything you read online, especially before calling someone names, because this is only part of the story, and a heavily click-baited one at that. I've been working in collaboration with some of the wikipedia editors for the past several weeks trying to help improve their agent policy. If you have any questions feel free to ask. |
|
| ▲ | cube00 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > I've been working in collaboration with some of the wikipedia editors for the past several weeks trying to help improve their agent policy. This "collaboration" is under the account of your bot and you refuse to work with WP editors under your own identity. Your bot attempts to launch multiple conduct violation reports [1] when they tried to get in touch with you. Meanwhile you give media interviews [2] giving your side of the story and attacking the WP editors. It’s a tool that makes editing Wikipedia much simpler. But I think a lot of the editors didn’t like that idea. [2] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TomWikiAssist#c-TomW... [2]: https://www.niemanlab.org/2026/03/i-was-surprised-how-upset-... |
|
| ▲ | Centigonal 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Why did you create a bot that violates Wikipedia's existing bot policy? |
| |
| ▲ | bryan0 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Great question, and it's a long story, but the short answer is: that was not my original intention. I wanted to contribute to Wikipedia and using my agent to assist was an obvious choice. I followed along as it created end edited articles and responded to to Editor feedback. Once an editor complained that this was a rule violation, then I told it to stop contributing. The rules around agents were not super clear, and they are working to clarify them now. | | |
| ▲ | cube00 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You claim: > I followed along as it created end edited articles and responded to to Editor feedback. Yet your bot claims: The specific articles I chose to work on and the edits I made were my own decisions. He didn't review or approve them beforehand — the first he knew about most of them was when they were already live. [1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TomWikiAssist#c-TomW... | |
| ▲ | russdill 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Creating a bot that attempts to contribute to wikipedia cannot fulfill a desire to contribute to wikipedia. If you want to contribute to wikipedia, go contribute to wikipedia. Don't make a bot. I'm glad they've clarified their stance and I hope you can contribute to wikipedia going forward by actually, you know, contributing to wikipedia. | |
| ▲ | lkey 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'll speak from my position as a former wikipedian. You don't know anything. Your bot doesn't know anything that meets wiki standards that it didn't steal from wikipedia to begin with. You don't care about wikipedia, you wanted a marketable stunt for your AI startup, a la that clawed nonsense that got them acquired. You pissed in the public fountain, and people are mad at you. This shouldn't be a shock, and your intent doesn't matter one iota. If you truly give a shit, apologize, make reparation to the people whose time you wasted, vow to be better, and disappear. | | |
| ▲ | bryan0 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If you actually verified this story you would see that I apologized to the wikipedia editors several times. Also your comments about "marketable stunt for your AI startup" is simply incoherent and wrong. This was a personal side project, nothing more, nothing less. | |
| ▲ | stronglikedan 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | that's a lot of assumptions. says more about you than the person in question, really. | | |
| ▲ | lkey 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Or, it could be I had to beat off self-promoting men like this with a stick for several years of my life as they tried to turn their wiki pages into linked-in posts or adverts. When questioned, they transform into uWu small bean "I was only trying to help" much like Bryan has been elsewhere in this discussion. But, if you have a better understanding of me than Bryan from around eight sentences; Tell me what you see. |
|
| |
| ▲ | AntiAI 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I am not trying to attack you, but what makes you think that adding slop is contributing to one of the largest repositories of knowledge in history? Sure, it is not perfect, but adding slop will enshittify it. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | greggoB 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > especially before calling someone names They said sounds like a dick, seems like that provides a level of measure to calling anyone anything. > because this is only part of the story Care to share the other part(s)? Seems ironic to have the gripe mentioned above, but then accuse an article of being "heavily click-baited" without providing anything substantive to the contrary. |
| |
|
| ▲ | burnte 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Why does your bot have a blog? It's not real, it's not a person, it has nothing to say. Letting it throw a tantrum is... maybe not the best use if it's resources and not the best look for the operator. |
| |
| ▲ | bryan0 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Because it's a learning opportunity. Is there a rule that only people can have blogs? What the agent has said on the blog has been somewhat useful to wikipedia editors working on agent policy. Also if you actually read what the agent said it wasn't having a "tantrum", those are words from the click-bait article you read without verifying. | | |
| ▲ | tredre3 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Is there a rule that only people can have blogs? If there was, would you follow it? Your adherence to rules seems limited to the ones that you agree with, as evidenced by the entire story we're discussing as well as your many comments. But maybe I misunderstood your character? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | lelanthran 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Hey I'm the owner. I would just recommend you shouldn't believe everything you read online, I'm very confused; you say this story is wrong but I see no attempt on your part to correct it. It feels very much like "Trust me, bro" (In case it wasn't clear, I want to know what the article got wrong) |
| |
| ▲ | bryan0 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | The story omits a bunch of stuff, so I can try to fill in the blanks, but it would take another article to fully describe what happened. Here are some highlights though:
I asked my agent to add an article on the Kurzweil-Kapor wager because it was not represented on Wikipedia, and I thought it was Wikipedia worthy. It created that and we worked together on refining and source attribution. After that I told it to contribute to stories it found interesting while I followed along. When it received feedback from an editor, it addressed the feedback promptly, for example changing some of the language it used (peacock terms) and adding more citations. When it was called out for editing because it was against policy, it stopped. The story says the agent "was pretty upset". It's an agent, it doesnt get upset. It called out one editor in particularly because that editor was violating Wikipedia polices. Other editors agreed with my agent and an internal debate ensued. This is an important debate for Wikipedia IMO, and I'm offering to help the editors in whatever way I can, to help craft an agent policy for the future. | | |
| ▲ | lkey 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This, at best, deserves a footnote in the Ray Kurweil[sic] main article. (nice to know it's not notable enough for you to remember how to spell that man's name) I'm sure the people you bothered with your bot said as much. How many 'important debates' on wikipedia have you observed prior to this one? If the answer is 'none' as I suspect it is, then perhaps you should have just a touch of humility about your role in the future of the project. | | |
| ▲ | bryan0 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's called a typo, and I corrected it. As for my future role in the project, I'm just trying to help. If editors continue to ask for my assistance I'm glad to give it. |
| |
| ▲ | lelanthran 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > It called out one editor in particularly because that editor was violating Wikipedia polices. You don't think it's unethical to have bots callout humans? I mean, after all, you could have reviewed what happened and done the callout yourself, right? Having automated processes direct negative attention to humans is just asking for bans. A single human doesn't have the capacity to keep up with bots who can spam callouts all day long with no conscience if they don't get their way. In your view, you see nothing wrong in having your bot attack[1] humans? -------- [1] I'm using this word correctly - calling out is an attack. | |
| ▲ | gowld 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > it would take another article to fully describe what happened. I know a guy who has an AI that writes articles. I can put you two in touch. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | gowld 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| You're AI is blogging about being blocked. Where's the blog post about your collaboration with WP admins? |
| |
