Talk:Year 2000 problem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Time (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Computing / CompSci (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science.
 


Programming problem[edit]

Using 2 digits for years was a conscious decision. Bugs are unanticipated, unknown issues.

Religious Response[edit]

Walter - I'd argue for keeping the paragraph on religious response. Y2K as a greater social event had a huge religious component. Seems that selling the End Times, Apocalypse, etc. is a well established market with a 3,000 year head start on computers. Fear mongers took full advantage or exploiting people who had no idea what technogy is. I'm under the impression that since bodies did not fall from the sky at the stoke of midnight (as predicted by big slice of the media), plenty of people believe Y2K as a technical/project management issue was a hoax. DEddy (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoGNiHV09BU This NYTimes video pretty much covers the bases... Scary Gary North, Jerry Falwell, John Koskinen, Peter de Jager, Paul Saffo & more. Well worth 10 minutes of anyone's time. DEddy (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
There were others who saw it as potentially catastrophic if not apocalyptic. To only single out one group is WP:UNDUE and unbalanced at best and biased at worst.
So what's the motive behind singling out one group for criticism? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Because they're probably the single most dangerous, with the most believers? The point is a huge slice of people had at the time & continue to have now no idea what Y2K was. The media clearly didn't help since selling Apocalypse sells papers. Both of these groups are likely to repeat the same sort of incindiary propaganda the next time around. I'd be more than happy to possibly change the paragraph title & include your links. DEddy (talk) 13:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
But it's supposition to state that they are the most dangerous and have the most adherents. Most Christian groups did not fall for Y2K hysteria. It was a few fringe groups, just as in normal society.
I fully agree that a slice had fallen into an idea that Y2K was catastrophic. I fully agree that many people did not really comprehend the actual nature of Y2K. To state it was a "huge slice" is, once again, supposition and unsupported. To generalize that "media clearly didn't help" is once again false as many media outlets clearly explained what it involved.
Many of my links are not reliable sources and could not be used. And while I appreciate the offer, I'm not convinced that you understand WP:NPOV sufficiently to write a paragraph that will be both factual and neutral, but feel free to give it a try. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
"not reliable sources"... That's one of the major points... there wasn't & isn't much relable information. Most organzations didn't & don't have a clear understanding of their software collection.
I'll pass. People will think what they want to about the Y2K effort.
My experience with the religious angle is seeing a university professor's WALL of End Times/Apocalyps books... 10' high x 15' wide. ALL about how the end is 'nigh... real soon now. Leaves a lasting impression.
I still give my little Y2K test. "... 96, 97, 98, 99... What's the next two digit number?" Vast majority fail. Guesses are: "00?" "100?" One wise acre friend (a SysProg, naturally) offers "0A" DEddy (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
A single university prof's wall is not a RS either. It could be an obsession for the individual. If you had one at every university, that would be a different matter, especially if someone decided to write about it.
Not sure what your test has to do with conspiracy theories around Y2K. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Just a comment on how difficult it is for majority of people to understand what the two digit year was. People have varied responses to things they don't understand. DEddy (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
You've completely missed the point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Walter. After several undo actions on your part with my additions I am somewhat perplexed. I feel you are displaying bias by attempting to protect the Christian movement from critical observation. My additions summarize widespread actions that occurred and were widely documented across media, involving widely respected Christian leaders. It is in keeping with the rest of the article, which summarizes the response from various sectors. The Christian sector/religious response is a valid addition to the article and should be recorded. Far from being isolated wingnuts (your word), my information, gathered from a number of sources, including respected journalists in respected journals, points out what was common across the Pentecostal and fundamentalist streams of Christianity at the time. You can hardly describe Jerry Falwell, James Dobson and Gary North as fringe wingnuts - the reach of these men was into millions of people. This paragraph is not just about what some people did, regardless of how many, but is also about what the leaders within this significant stream of Christianity openly promoted at the time. I hope you can see the angle I am taking and reconsider. Do I have support from other editors here to restore my contribution? As a relatively inexperienced contributor I don't know where to take this to get it up again. If it needs further work with sounding more encyclopedic then so be it, I'll work on it, but let's make a start. Thanks, Myron 1.132.96.239 (talk) 07:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're perplexed. Did you bother to read the discussion above? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I have undone the last edit and made significant changes and improvements which I believe go a long way towards addressing objections raised. Significantly, it has a new sub-heading to embrace the wider fringe movement where these more extreme behaviors were noted. I have endeavoured to reflect more than just the religious or Christian response and phrase it to cover the wider fringe movements responses, albeit with significant examples from the more extreme Christian elements which are noteworthy. Described in this way, notability guidelines within Wikipedia are clearly met. I have also worked to improve the tone of the language used to be somewhat more encyclopedic and less like a personal reflection. If it can be improved further this way that is most welcome. In keeping with the guidelines of Wikipedia I remind other editors of the following, as the tone and wording of some comments in this talk page and the action of a complete deletion of the whole original paragraph have in my opinion, been unacceptable when held up to this standard. This is also appropriate given that allegations of bias have been thrown into the comments. Follow the normal protocol: (found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution )

When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page.

It is worth reading the rest of these guidelines. 1.132.96.240 (talk) 10:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I can see you refuse to back down from unfairly focusing on a single group. Other editors will fix your poor edits. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
And for the record, they're not improvements and your characterization of your edits as such is laughable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Added again[edit]

It was added again without agreement, and there were problems, such as adding links to headings, which is against MOS:HEADING. Please gain agreement for the additions before adding. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)