Oy. "a composition by" on Discogs ain't Oxford English neither. It's Discogs speak. Do not attempt any translations to plain English. It's a gross misapplication of their database for which you can provide no normative reference both you and Discogs have agreed upon.

Auto-bots - auto-generated - standard relational database function, whatevs. See above.

You: "That is why I say that Discogs is not a reliable source of information on songs, and should be treated with caution. There are thousands of songs that will be wrongly linked."

Me: "Garbage in - garbage out. Social media does not produce high quality data. The user qualifications are "has internet access." The forum based rules & guidelines are social media in and of themselves."

The Klingon-English-Discogspeak social media guideline is their ethical normative reference, ignore it at your own peril. Even as a graphics arts database it's out of control. It's no secret to users and it's allowed. No surprise, the commercial marketplace that uses the same d/b for inventory control is an unqualified disaster, also allowed.

Shall we call it a belligerent agreement then?

That said, my current Yellow Bird 'discography' is 2000+ lines. Can't imagine doing that by hand. I can download, import and rotate the lot as a .csv file of Chicago Style Guide citations in a blink, images and all, but it does require some validation & maintenance... just like the users.