Disambiguation | ||||
|
Is including an actual dictionary definition here a good idea? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.17.92.51 ( talk) 20:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
Really? I thought they were reliable. Reliably bad.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.106.106.71 ( talk) 12:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
gmhkyhkui,.u. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.131.98 ( talk) 12:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Since so much of the infrastructure of Wikipedia is based on the notion of what is reliable, this definition seems a little bare.
My Toyota (for now, no jinxes) is reliable.
I happen to think that the New York Times is reliable.
Is it informative ? Sometimes no, sometimes yes.
Is it enjoyable ? Almost always.
Any objection to fleshing out the article a bit, and ideas of how to do so ?
For example, why not actually list media and journals that are thought to be reliable for various topics ?
Sure. Reliabilty is often specified as 99%, 99.9%, or 99.99% (for example). But this is just a rule-of-thumb. I don't think this should be an assumption by any means. There are orders of magnitude performance difference (and costs) associated with such specifications, so there can be a big difference between 99.0% and 99.45% reliability.-- 74.107.74.39 ( talk) 02:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change interwiki link from ru:Надёжность to ru:Надёжность_(значения) because http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%91%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C article is similar to english article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability
Anna.nozik ( talk) 11:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Done Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 05:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation | ||||
|
Is including an actual dictionary definition here a good idea? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.17.92.51 ( talk) 20:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
Really? I thought they were reliable. Reliably bad.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.106.106.71 ( talk) 12:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
gmhkyhkui,.u. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.131.98 ( talk) 12:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Since so much of the infrastructure of Wikipedia is based on the notion of what is reliable, this definition seems a little bare.
My Toyota (for now, no jinxes) is reliable.
I happen to think that the New York Times is reliable.
Is it informative ? Sometimes no, sometimes yes.
Is it enjoyable ? Almost always.
Any objection to fleshing out the article a bit, and ideas of how to do so ?
For example, why not actually list media and journals that are thought to be reliable for various topics ?
Sure. Reliabilty is often specified as 99%, 99.9%, or 99.99% (for example). But this is just a rule-of-thumb. I don't think this should be an assumption by any means. There are orders of magnitude performance difference (and costs) associated with such specifications, so there can be a big difference between 99.0% and 99.45% reliability.-- 74.107.74.39 ( talk) 02:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change interwiki link from ru:Надёжность to ru:Надёжность_(значения) because http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%91%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C article is similar to english article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability
Anna.nozik ( talk) 11:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Done Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 05:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)