Talk:British Post Office scandal
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the British Post Office scandal article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 28 days  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
Angela van den Bogerd
editI'm thinking of spinning out a separate article on Angela van den Bogerd, based on the volume of RS coverage of her, specifically. Any objhections? Guy (help! - typo?) 23:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- I assume it'd be a standard BLP article, not solely limited to her role in the BPO scandal? -- Jmc (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Origin of computer glitch?
editHi, evidence has emerged that at least some but not all of the discrepancies may be due to a defect in the actual processors used. I accidentally discovered this a few years back with the early AMD chips (4800 and 5600) that some games didn't run properly until patched because the cores got out of sync resulting in data corruption. This might have worsened with load as typically higher clocks generated more issues and the effect also varied depending on motherboard type and RAM manufacturer. The Intel chips at the time didn't suffer as badly from this but SPECTRE and Meltdown became an issue later. Is it worth Intel and AMD testifying at the Horizon inquiry given that Intel already knew of a much earlier errata in the Pentium (FDIV) that was later patched in the silicon revision. The issue of an actual hardware defect or defects being a factor has come up before but as the hardware is so old now maybe something got overlooked? 91.190.161.160 (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have any reliable sources discussing this? Can you share them here?Bondegezou (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- If this is any possible technical explanation, one might expect it to come to light in the official enquiry. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- 91.190.161.160, a discussion on computerforum.com is not what we would consider a reliable source. See WP:RS for details. Bondegezou (talk) 08:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- You might want to raise this in other forums if you feel concerned, but until this comes up in WP:RS, this isn't a matter for Wikipedia. — The Anome (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Controversial
edit@ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter: has added a controversy tag ("The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute"). Just wondered why? The subject itself is not controversial - in the sense that no-one is arguing that the Post Office is blameless. I have looked back over the past month's edits (over 100) and there doesn't seem to be any content dispute, etc. Southdevonian (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Good point, I have now removed it. --ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Neutrality/Editorial issues
editHi, everyone. I noticed that in the section 'Call for reform on digital evidence', paragraph 2 and part of paragraph 3 read like a persuasive essay rather than an encyclopedia. Does anyone else notice this and, if so, how can we fix this? QwertyForest (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- In case anyone is interested in this discussion in the future, this is a discussion relevant to this version of the article. QwertyForest (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that paragraph 2, at least, is tendentious and minimally relevant. It could well be excised without loss to the article. -- Jmc (talk) 04:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)