On 10/19/06, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
You contradict yourself. If you leave it to the bot, you are assuming it is more intelligent than you are, or, you are just ignoring a problem.
No, I don't. It' is apparent that some people are not reading before they revert, and there are folks in this thread advocating that doing so is okay.
My position is that if you aren't going to read it, you shouldn't revert it... leave it to a bot which will (eventually) do a better job than a human who reverted blindly.
Why leave something for a bot, that you could have done on sight.
I'd rather a human make a decision, but if they aren't going to a decision and instead act like a bot... then we should allow the bot to do the work, it will do a better job and its mistakes will be both more excusable and easier to fix.
The edit in the first post was a short edit. Do you really really expect everyone to, 1) wait for a bot, which may or may not come, or 2) to read the entirety of every edit which can be comfortably, with a large margin, to be considered vandalism.
Or more accurately, I want people who are not going to read to refrain from vandalism reversion... leave it to the bots and reading humans.
Bots are not more consistent with their intelligence, they are just plain dumb. Consistency in your context does not mean the intelligent consistency.
A human who reverts a blanked page because it was blanked without reading anything is never superior to a bot. At its very worst a bot would be equal, but when a bot reverted blanking inappropriately we could add rules to avoid some cases... not true with a human who doesn't read.