On 10/19/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/19/06, Rob <gamaliel8(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The idea that one should read and screen an
entire article that is
blanked is absurd. Tt is entirely probable that even if you rewrote
the article from scratch you might not address whatever supposed
problem the vandal had with the article. We should keep an eye out
for problems as best we can but we aren't mindreaders and we can't
assume every vandal is an angry celebrity.
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.
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.
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.
Anthony