DJK(John) Robinson
djkr at msn.com
Sat Feb 16 17:14:59 CST 2008
Not wishing to pour cold water on the enterprise, but ... You do realise that carefully-crafted correct entries can then easily be re-mangled by someone else, don't you? And that this does happen? I do sometimes look things up in Wikipedia, but more to see what someone's (possibly mistaken) opinion is, rather than to discover rock-solid fact. You may pick up ideas or terminology to search for in more authoritative places. Put it another way: would you fly in a plane whose designers depended on information from Wikipedia? John -----Original Message----- From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Dan Waters Sent: 16 February 2008 13:28 To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving' Subject: Re: [AccessD] Friday/weekend scaring reading: Wikipedia and JET Hi Gustav, My response was quickly written without reading the article itself, I was just trying to say that Wikipedia entries can be corrected when needed. Unfortunately I don't know enough myself to participate in writing an article about Jet - but I will certainly look forward to reading it once it is corrected! Dan -----Original Message----- From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Gustav Brock Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 7:00 AM To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com Subject: Re: [AccessD] Friday/weekend scaring reading: Wikipedia and JET Hi Dan Thanks, but first I'm not so sure, second time doesn't allow. I think Arthur has the right approach. Cumulative efforts from our list - as Arthur suggests -could probably be the best way to have the article rewritten. I will happily give my input to this, but to be honest I think several among us know more about the finer details of JET, indeed those who own and have read the book about JET which I have the impression carry true facts only. First thing to do would be to split up the content, like: Overview History (for example: When and how did Rushmore arrive) Evolution Technique, capabilities, compatibility, limitations Programming, language True and false (let's kill all the bad talk and rumours once and for all) Upgrade options (SQL Server engine and CE) Future (JET was given a second life with Access 2007) What about the author of that book? Is he/she around? Could be a splendid source and/or contributor. /gustav >>> dwaters at usinternet.com 15-02-2008 17:49 >>> Gustav, I think you could modify the Wikipedia entry to be correct! Dan -----Original Message----- From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Gustav Brock Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 3:44 AM To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com Subject: [AccessD] Friday/weekend scaring reading: Wikipedia and JET Hi all - or perhaps indeed our JET specialist, Jim Dettman Here is a scaring example that not everything in Wikipidia is to be trusted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Jet_Database_Engine That entry is so full of confusing, mixed up and misleading facts and incorrect version info that a major rewrite is requested. (My time doesn't allow, sorry). And why everything is written in preteritum and not presens as if JET has passed away, I don't know. For example, it fools around from paragraph one with JET, SQL Server and SQL Server Compact Edition - and states that SQL was introduced in "later versions". And if you stand reading through this mess, at the end the author claims transactions to be introduced in JET version 4.0. Much can be said about JET but it certainly deserves a more trustworthy description. /gustav -- AccessD mailing list AccessD at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com -- AccessD mailing list AccessD at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com