On 10/19/06, Rob gamaliel8@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'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.
To me it seems that the tone of your post, "an angry celebrity", really comes off as disrespectful both to the people we write about and to the folks who are dealing with this kinda garbage... Rest assured that no one is working on this subject area because they like merely appeasing people who cry about non-issues. The overwhelming majority of cases which get acted on are serious and materially hurtful attacks and it is not reasonable for you to belittle the matter.