On 20/10/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Peter Ansell wrote:
On 20/10/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
But it is ABSOLUTELY INEXCUSABLE for a human to act in a manner which is no more intelligent than a bot. If you are not going to read when you revert a blanking, you should leave the work to a bot which will generally do a better, faster, and more consistent job than you ... a human who is pretending to be a bot.
You contradict yourself.
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?
I have encountered people who are worried about pages, and rather than blanking, they post messages on the "discussion" page. I know I always listen to those messages, and they are infinitely more informative than a new user blanking a page repeatedly. I still do not see why we should be beaten down because of a mistake which was caused by their lack of communication. As was said before, their should be informative messages before blanking is allowed, so they can see the intelligent options more clearly. Possibly even link directly to the BLP noticeboard, which gets a large volume of traffic and can deal with the sort of things that were so worrying in the single case that has been demonstrated here.
Peter Ansell