On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 5:15 AM, Nathan
<nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> In reply to George, I don't think tagging images by the bot results in
> auto
> delete. An administrator making a conscious decision is required,
although
some
administrators run scripts to delete all images past the deadline.
That
isn't auto-deletion, though, just a call by the admin that all expired
warnings mean images should be deleted.
As long as some admins run those scripts, and some do, the effect is
effectively auto-deletion. How that happens / via what mechanism, the
only
thing that matters is that "no human reviews
each individual case before
it
going poof".
Yes, and I think this is
the crux of WJhonson's arguments. Bots are a
very convenient technique for those who feel overwhelmed by copyvios.
The problem is that solving the problem with toxic pesticides damages
the environment.
Not to focus the argument on or pick on him particularly, but East718 just
did a run that amounted to this and nuked one image off one page that I
noticed, and on checking his logs appears to have gotten a bunch more too.
The one that got deleted had been manually tagged, not bot-tagged, and the
tag was proper (there was no current rationale), but the rationale was self
evident and easy.
It might help with friendly behavior modification if a few more senior
people hop over and constructively ask him not to do that again... (note:
CONSTRUCTIVELY ... thanks)
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com