--- Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/19/06, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I, for one, am not about to start reading entire articles to check for
problems
every time I encounter one of them being blanked by a new user with no explanation. Sure, as a human I can grok the context better than a bot, but
I'm
not going to waste more than half a minute on it.
Then you have no business reverting blanked articles... if you are going to do a worse job than the bots, then you should leave it to them.
Who said I was going to do a worse job? Given what I know as a human, I'm pretty sure that there's no reason to blank, for example, [[Alan Turing]] without explanation, so I can revert that in the time it takes to hit "rollback". And, while I can do a lot more than a bot could with 30 seconds, I'm unlikely to read through an entire article if it's of any length.
And they did, obviously, because if they hadn't the junk would have stayed up. But that doesn't fix the loss of goodwill that we suffer because of this.
I believe that the risk of reasonable people bearing us ill-will if we revert their unexplained page-blanking is negligible. If, on the other hand, they communicated a problem about an article to us in a fashion readily distinguishable from vandalism and test edits, and we did nothing, then we lose goodwill.
It would be a lot easier if the expirenced editor, in this case, did nothing at all.
I'm afraid we'll have to disagree on that.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html