Talk:Year 2000 problem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Time    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article was within the scope of WikiProject Time, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
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.

The "Opposing View" section[edit]

The section with the arguments against Y2K being a serious problem is poor. It cites two areas where Y2K was not a problem, but offers no opinion on those areas where it undoubtedly would have been a big problem. The "absence of Y2K problems occurring before 1 January 2000" is a fatuous point. I was a Y2K test manager at a large insurance company. We were fully aware that our drop dead date was in the autumn of 1998, when renewal notices for annual contracts extending beyond 31st December 1999 would first be processed. Nearly all of the effort at that company was during 1997 and 1998. 1999 was for final fine tuning. Other, similar companies were doing the same thing.

The argument that problems should have been fixed when they occurred might have applied to organisations with small and simple applications. Large insurance companies, most of whose applications are date related, could not have coped with the avalanche of problems bringing complex systems down. To be kind I'll say that was an ill-informed opinion. I pored over these applications in minute detail and know how they would have failed. I don't have much respect for the opinion of people who tell me I needn't have bothered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddie Threepwood (talkcontribs) 22:26, 11 January 2015

In particular I think the "hoax of the century" claim by the Wall Street Journal has undue prominence. It was written by a columnist, James Taranto, not a technology or business journalist. The link is broken and the article is no longer available online. Such extreme, hysterical claims should surely have a source available that we can go and check to see what evidence he has for his assertions. If it is merely Taranto's personal opinion then that is of no more significance than the views of the guy sitting next to me in the pub. Jean de Luz (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

No-one has objected to, or passed any comment, on my criticism of the "opposing view" section. I will therefore update it to qualify the unsubstantiated claims. There are no links available to back up remarkable claims (ie that there would have only a few minor mistakes, and the ludicrous assertion that "fix on failure" would have been generally "efficient and cost-effective"). I will also remove the reference to the Wall Street Journal article, which is ill-informed polemic from a controversialist rather than a commentator. Jean de Luz (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Location of image[edit]

Apparently the metadata supports that it was taken at a school. I don't see that.

Date and time of data generation 12:09, 3 January 2000
Horizontal resolution 1 dpc
Vertical resolution 1 dpc
File change date and time 12:09, 3 January 2000
Y and C positioning Centered
Exif version 2.3
Date and time of digitizing 12:09, 3 January 2000
Color space Uncalibrated
North or south latitude North latitude
East or west longitude West longitude
Altitude 20 meters above sea level
Geodetic survey data used WGS-84
GPS date 3 January 2000

I checked it before the original revert and I have provided it here now. Feel free to point out what I'm missing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparently the software Walter Görlitz used does not display latitude and longitude, which is in fact embedded in this image: 47° 14' 53.1" North, 1° 32' 47.3" West. This corresponds to Nantes, France. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
And it corresponds to the auditorium of the named school in Nantes.... see also the link in WP: [1] BTW: it is bad practice to revert an edit with that had a reliable source without first waiting for the discussion. Schily (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Apparently the software I'm using is Wikicommons and the metadata it displays is shown above. Is this WP:OR or WP:CALC? I would argue it's a bit of both since the reader is required to download the image and open it in software that shows the full EXIF data, which is too much to expect for verification of this information. Once that is done, it is also required to use maping software capable of converting LatLong data and displaying a map. Not impossible, just a very high hurdle. BTW: it is bad practice to revert without starting a discussion, which is why @Schily: should have discussed before reverting. Agreed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry to see that you did never try to do the easiest thing: open the Wikimedia page for that image by clicking on that image and have a look at the information about the meta data and the included link that I copied. In other words: there is no such hurdle.... I am however finally satisfied to see that you at least admit that your first revert was not OK already. Schily (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I see. You're confused. The GPS coordinates are listed at Wikicommons, not Wikimedia (what is that?) and you can click through to OpenStreeMap or Google Earth. The former shows École Centrale Audencia on the left side and one must zoom-in to see École Centrale de Nantes. Google Earth does not list the school name at all. Time for RfC or are you going to admit you're wrong and revert? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
If you again claim your previous ideas, you seem to be confused. If you are able to read the OpenStreetMap, you should understand that this is a location inside the auditorium of École Centrale de Nantes. You do not need to zoom in on OpenStreetMap to see the name and OpenStreetMap even mentions this as "building L" of the school. Goole of course lists the school name, see [2] for an optical verification that this is the "audimax" building of the school. So why are you now trying to go back to your wrong claims before our verification? Schily (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
What? That makes no sense. At my screen resolution, I do need to zoom in. And appealing to Google maps is not an option since it's not available from Wikicommons. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
??? You have been talking about Google Earth that is not available as there is no implementation for free OS, so I showed you another Google service that is available for free OS. And BTW: If you decide to use a very low screen resolution, you should not make others responsible for your decision. Schily (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I have been talking about Google Earth because that is one of the links there. You showed a service not available from Wikicommons. And BTW What screen resolutions do you think I used to look at OpenStreetMap? What makes you think that they are low screen resolutions? For your information, I used if you think that 1600 X 1200, 1024 x 768 and the three other resolutions. However, it's not the resolutions that were the issue, but the zoom level. I'm sorry I didn't make the clear the first time. Oh, I did write "one must zoom-in to see École Centrale de Nantes". You just missed it. Sorry you missed it. Perhaps you should stop while you're ahead. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Initially, I intentionally send the OpenStreetMap link because it is included in the page and because it works even on a free OS. I added Google later because you claimed that Goole does not include a name at all. I am sorry to see after checking again that I seem to miss that I needed to zoom in initially to make the name readable, but this is something I usually do in order to check for everyhing that might be in the maps. Schily (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Now that we have cleared that up and we understand that the hurdle is high, shall we remove or take to RfC? Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I m not sure what you like to tell us here. Do you like to remove a statement from the article even though it has a reliable source? Schily (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
It is not a clear source. That is what I have been saying. It is verifiable, but it takes too much effort and some special skills to verify. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
WP does not have a limit on the effort it takes to verify a source. WP not even requires the source to be available on-line. Schily (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the layout of the driveways and parking lots, it appears from the OpenStreetMap view that the building that corresponds to the GPS coordinates is on the campus of the École Centrale de Nantes. I believe the metadata supports the claim that the picture was taken at the École Centrale de Nantes. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Your belief system is not the issue. The question is whether a reader, unfamiliar with the facilities, could come to the same conclusion. They cannot do so easily. That is why I propose the return to the original wording. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the photo in the lede section contain the school's name[edit]

Bikesheddish note irrelevant to the article, as consensus confirms. Esquivalience (alt) (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The image contains GPS coordinates. Those coordinates relate to a school. However, is the hurdle of investigation too high? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The location is stated in the image. As for hurdle of investigation, Wikipedia allows citation to sources that are stored in archives; compared to accessing that sort of publication, verifying the location of the image is trivial. Also, the original research policy says that images are not considered original research unless they introduce a new idea or argument. It is well-known that many devices exhibited the kind of fault illustrated in the image, so there is no new idea or argument. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Clarification. The GPS co-ordinates, not the location, are stored in the image. It requires some additional work to determine the location's name, which may or may not change over time. Not completely trivial, but not an insurmountable hurdle either. (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • (response invited by the rfc bot) Regardless GPS coordinates, the name of the school is in the sign itself, so its repetition is redundancy and hence clutter, hence this RFC is waste of time. As for using coordinates from the image to support some claim, this a broad issue, not to be discussed in this talk page only. If someone thinks it is a critical issue, the proper venue is WP:NOR message board. As for my personal opinion, this image might as well be a prank against the school: photoshop. Therefore on the second thought I would remove the image as original research coming from a non-reliable source: a wikipedian. It is not simply a picture to illustrate the content in an article about the depicted object; instead, it is an image which is a statement about the school (which is not the subject of the article), namely, this school had sloppy IT department. And the latter statement as such is inadmissible without reliable sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Per WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE, an image which looks like an instance of year 2000 bug is appropriate, whether it is authentic or not. The name of the school in image description serves no purpose for this article, so it should be replaced with shorter and more relevant "An affected sign displaying the year 1900 instead of 2000". WarKosign 05:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with WarKosign. This is a total non-issue. It's pretty obvious where this photo was taken - the sign says "Welcome to the Ecole Centrale de Nantes", it's hardly OR to say where it was taken - but that's completely irrelevant anyway, since the location is actually an irrelevant distraction in the comment anyway. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 12:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Only here for the RFC. This is a storm in a legalistic teacup. The picture is an illustration -- both literally and metaphorically -- not a factual claim that needs citation. Arguing that it could have been photoshopped is totally beside the point unless someone somewhere is arguing that no such event ever occurred. The question of the GPS is soooo irrelevant that it hurts. Leave the illustration where it does the most good and get on with life for heaven's sake! JonRichfield (talk) 05:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Support - nothing to say here that hasn't been said already, so I'll just say that my opinion here is the same. KieranTribe (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • What a silly waste of time. The image should stay. The caption might read, "On January 3, 2000, an electronic sign incorrectly displays the year as 1900". EEng (talk) 04:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)