--- Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/19/06, Matt R <matt_crypto(a)yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
I, for one, am not about to start reading entire
articles to check for
problems
every time I encounter one of them being blanked
by a new user with no
explanation. Sure, as a human I can grok the context better than a bot, but
I'm
not going to waste more than half a minute on it.
Then you have no business reverting blanked articles... if you are
going to do a worse job than the bots, then you should leave it to
them.
Who said I was going to do a worse job? Given what I know as a human, I'm
pretty sure that there's no reason to blank, for example, [[Alan Turing]]
without explanation, so I can revert that in the time it takes to hit
"rollback". And, while I can do a lot more than a bot could with 30 seconds,
I'm unlikely to read through an entire article if it's of any length.
And they did, obviously, because if they hadn't
the junk would have stayed
up. But that doesn't fix the loss of goodwill that we suffer because of this.
I believe that the risk of reasonable people bearing us ill-will if we revert
their unexplained page-blanking is negligible. If, on the other hand, they
communicated a problem about an article to us in a fashion readily
distinguishable from vandalism and test edits, and we did nothing, then we lose
goodwill.
It would be a lot easier if the expirenced editor, in
this case, did
nothing at all.
I'm afraid we'll have to disagree on that.
-- Matt
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog:
http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of
use." - PC Magazine
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html