Talk:Error
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This article was nominated fordeletion on 13 May 2018. The result ofthe discussion was keep. |
 | This level-5 vital article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kioujio
I removed most of this entry. It was largely a combination of a less than fruitful attempt at a general-purpose definition of "error" and random trivia from a number of disciplines. Some particular comments:
Removed this silly claim. Many kinds of insurance are designed not to protect you from error, but from "acts of God", such as fires and floods. Unless you mean to call God and/or "the Universe" a source of "error". Insurance protects you from many things that are not error, including chance and intentional malice.
Removed. Not NPOV. Whether errors occur "naturally" is entirely a matter of philosophical perspective. There is certainly a perspective from which anything natural is, by definition, free of error. In the case of genetics, you can only regard mutation as an "error" if you take as given that nature "wants" its replication processes to be exact replication processes.
That's nice. Why can't this be in an article about law?
--Ryguasu 09:16 Nov 12, 2002 (UTC)
How about a section for Human Error? I would base it on the book of the same name written byJames Reason. I may try it soon, but I don't currently have a copy of the book (an article on the book and its author would also be nice), but if anyone else wants to take a crack, give it a go.Spalding 16:01, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
Accidents are often caused when a chain of errors occur that bypass safety countermeasures.
This applies most particularly in the fieds of transportation.
Syd1435 06:04, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
I've never edited the wikipedia before and so don't know the protocols ... so when indoubt communicate (and be gentle with me if I have done wrong :-) The prior discussion described the term "fault" to be a bug. This is (a) wrong and (b) and ignores the critical distinction (widely recognized in availability engineering) between design elements that predispose a system to error (defects) and the conditions or events that exercise the defects (faults). The distinction is important, not merely for precision of communication, but has very practical value in that some things (that are technically referred to as defects) are nearly impossible to eliminate, and it is more practical to deal with the risk of failure by preventing the faults (which while less robust can be equally effective). For example, it is (in reliability parlance) a "defect" that human beings are so easily killed by bullets, so we attempt to reduce the likelihood of error (peoplebeing damaged by bullets) and failure (death or disability) by reducing the likelihood of fault-events (regulating fire-arms and wearing body armor).
There is another discussion that I only started ... but chose not to take deeperfor fear of doing more harm than good. In hierarchical systems, we often use theterm "error" to describe behavior that is entirely within specifications. Whena degraded signal makes it impossible to recover data from a disk, the softwarein the controller detects this failure (through error detecting data encoding) and includes, in the request completion information, a description of the data read error. The disk controller is functioning exactly as specified ... which means that thisdoes not (technically) qualify as an error. I mentioned that in hierarchical systemsan error or failure at level N can turn into a fault at the next level up. I didnot (for fear of muddying the waters) say that such faults are also usually referredto as errors.
MarkKampe17:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't all these headings violate this guideline? Shouldn't we move the links into the sections?Spalding03:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest merginggaffe into this article. --Dangherous09:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
but the first impression when this article loads, with that picture of thetrain wreck at Montparnasse is priceless. —Dylan Lake (t·c·ε)00:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oluwasegunjeg18:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)segun[reply]
I just had to laugh when I saw that train picture at the top of the page! It was funny, and it also made me think ofUncyclopedia. Good job, whoever did that! (But in all seriousness, it clearly tells the reader what and error is.) -dogman1501:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I loved the picture but it led to the neglect of error in the sense "the error of your ways", human moral error or departure from social norms. The article had stated that error was predominantly about a gap between intended and actual result. That didn't even fit statistical and experimental error or some of the other technical, scientific, and engineering uses, e.g., in control theory.DCDuring17:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The pronunciation "'erə" was cited for the word. A pronunciation guide for such a basic word doesn't really need to be there at all, and it is only one of a couple of very common pronunciations of the word. The one given is also one pronunciation of "era" and is used by r-droppers.--Jeffro7722:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Error does not just derive from a gap between intended and actual consequence. (experimental error and gaffe didn't fit.) It can also be a gap between actual behavior and the norm or expectation for that behavior. Expectation needed for something like experimental error; norm needed for social gaffes. Also, I don't want to make this article into a discussion of moral error, but there was a problem IMHO because we had excluded a class of errors in human behavior. (Not just human, in principle: It could be any morally responsible entity, but I can't think of others outside of fiction.) Departures from socially given or religious norms are errors, too. I don't see how we can sensible have gaffes included and "moral" error excluded. I would want to continue the practice of referring to other articles for fuller explanations. I'm not sure that I would know how to get citations if parts of this article were challenged. Is this article even encyclopedic?DCDuring18:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
not jet described ? --213.23.168.170 (talk)12:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it to be a mistake to label this page as the error page, as I believe the word mistake to be a better choice; however, it is no mistake to think differently about this.Wise Raven) 3:43 31 August 2013—Precedingundated comment added02:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article first describes "error" as being opposed tomistakes (disambig link BTW), and then start to speak of gaffes as mistakes. I'm not actually sure that mistakes aren't errors (more citations needed), so the article confuses (is a confusion an error, or is it a concept that causes errors?) errors and mistakes by providing two taxonomies, first by explicit definition:
and then by implication the incompatible:
... More sources needed!Said:Rursus☻10:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what the first paragraph now says:
I think this is nonsense. That may be the meaning of the word "error" in some fairly specific contexts, but it is wrong to say that all other senses or the word or instances of errors are merely metaphorically errors.Michael Hardy (talk)23:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 | An image used in this article,File:Calendar error.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion atWikimedia Commons for the following reason:Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevantimage page (File:Calendar error.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk)11:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
Anyone notice these two articles have the same image in the same place?--78.156.109.166 (talk)20:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a move discussion in progress onTalk:Error (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot20:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
== sign naroto
==
It seems that nowhere in WP is sign-naroto. Maybe it could be a section here, and not need a page of its own. I wanted to link to it, but there is nothing to link to!Gah4 (talk)21:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
