[dba-Tech] Friday/weekend scaring reading: Wikipedia and JET

Hi All:

This Wikipedia article is comprised of 8 sections
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Jet_Database_Engine writing by
supposedly knowledgeable MDB experts. Below is posted one of the sections.
Who can find the most errors?:

<Section 1>
Architecture

Jet allowed the manipulation of relational database and was part of a
Relational Database Management System (RDBMS). It offered a single interface
that other software could use to access Microsoft databases and provided
support for security, referential integrity, transaction processing,
indexing, record and page locking, and data replication. In later versions,
the engine was extended to be able to run SQL queries, store character data
in Unicode format, create database views and allowed bi-directional
replication with Microsoft SQL Server.

There were three modules to Jet. One was the Native Jet ISAM Driver, a
dynamic link library (DLL) that could directly manipulate Microsoft Access
database files (MDB), which was a modified form of an Indexed Sequential
Access Method (ISAM) database. Another one of the modules were the ISAM
Drivers, DLLs that allowed access to ISAM databases, among them being Xbase,
Paradox, Btrieve and FoxPro files. The final module was the Data Access
Objects (DAO) DLL, DAO allowed programmers access to the Jet engine. It was
basically an object-oriented data language used by Visual Basic for
Applications and Visual Basic programmers to access Jet.

</Section 1>
 
There are so many flaws and half truths in this article it will take me a
while to know where to start. When we have finally corrected the 8 section
the present Wikipedia article can be replaced.

Jim 

-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Arthur Fuller
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 6:02 PM
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: Re: [AccessD] Friday/weekend scaring reading: Wikipedia and JET

I don't think it's fair to dump all this responsibility to correct this
entry upon Gustav. Even though he is a fabulously wealthy magnate with
billions to spare and allegedly retired, having nothing better to do than
play with scantily clad nympettes and write brilliant VBA code, we ought not
foist all this responsibility upon him. Amongst us all, we could revise this
entry to be accurate.

That's what Wikipedia is all about, IMO. Some dumbass posts his or her take
on some subject, and it gets revised by the more knowledgeable set of
readers and writers.

I've a niece in graduate school whose prof said, "Never trust Wikipedia". I
hate this response. It says to me, "I know where the author is incorrect,
but rather than post revisions, I shall instead declare the entire
enterprise worthless and beneath contempt."

Such persons can go fart in the nearest lake, IMO.

The whole point of Wikipedia is that we collectively fix its entries. In
this narrow and specific example, several of us, if not most, on this list,
know considerably more about JET that the author of the existing entry. The
original contributor may have thought herself in possession of most or all
the facts. Clearly this is not the case. But attacking her (or him) is
unproductive: let us fix the entry and let us not foist it upon Gustav to
fix it.

Let us not issue diatribes about the incorrectness of the original entry,
but simply and quietly and without malice render it more accurate.

How to coordinate our collective corrections is another issue, but one best
manage by Wiki itself. We can all contribute to the history of JET, to the
best of our abilities, and render this first submission a good start but
since enhanced.

A.