On 10/19/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
I'm also wondering why it isn't
"ABSOLUTELY INEXCUSABLE" for the human
who originally blanked the article to be acting in a manner that's no
more intelligent than a bot as well. We grant newbies a lot of slack,
and we grant the aggrieved victims of libel even more slack, but if the
inexcusability of this is really absolute then in this case the original
blanker is just as much in the wrong.
Can we tone down the hyperbole a bit?
Lets trade, I'll stop being offended by how lazy some of our
anti-vandalism video game players are when the rest of the folks in
the thread stop making excuses for them.
As to why we'd hold bots to a different standard than humans: Bots
don't have brains, humans do... If you are mindlessly reverting
vandalism in a manner no more effective than what a bot could, should,
and would do then you are doing nothing more than needlessly pumping
your edit count.
I've substantiated my position, but I've yet to see a clear argument
as to why it's okay to chose not to read, beyond it "being easier".