Elementary errors (Was: Rule of three–gone??)

Posting to Autocat

I don’t know about everyone else, but it seems as if the number of extremely elementary errors, such as this one, is rising lately, and I have tried to figure out why. I mentioned this in a posting to NGC4LIB, and I suggested a few possible reasons:
1) inadequate training
2) adequate training, but inadequate time to do a decent job
3) adequate training, perhaps with adequate time, but low morale to do a good job
4) one that I wonder about: are the current standards simply set too high?

I’m sure there are other reasons as well. Also, whenever I have seen these sorts of elementary errors, I worry that the person may be doing it on everything, and who knows what other mistakes they may be committing? No matter what though, the rule of three is beaten into our heads so mercilessly, that I find it difficult even to imagine that someone could make a mistake on it. After all, I am sure I am not the only cataloger to have been relieved to see that “nightmare” personal name or the translated name of some foreign corporate body, but there are four, so it winds up saving a lot of work.

And then, I ask: I haven’t heard anyone argue that RDA is simpler than AACR2, and if there are these obvious bloopers now, and I have said that I–at any rate–believe the numbers of these bloopers are rising, what can we expect when the added complexity of RDA comes in?