On 10/20/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 10/19/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/19/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote: In this case the article consisted of nothing more than naming the person and where she works and a unsourced rumor about her having an abortion.
I'm disappointed to have read this entire thread before getting this bit of information.
...
Absolutely. If you're going to revert a blanking, you should be damn sure that at least *some* part of the original text was in fact accurate.
Don't know whether the reverter was "damn sure", but some part of the original text _was_ in fact accurate. The unsourced rumor was in the second half of the article, the first half of the article was pretty much okay.
So this might not have been a case of what I referred to as "absolutely" "unacceptable", which for some reason you cut out. Here it is:
"I'd buy the argument that you read some of a long blanked page and missed the vandalism... (although you should also look at the recent history). But the argument that it's okay for a human to revert without reading at all? ... unacceptable."
Anthony