Re: [Zope] comment on posting behavior
On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 22:43:41 -0500 Tom Neff <tneff@bigfoot.com> wrote:
I do want to re-emphasize that what I was really complaining about was the kind of thing where someone asks "How do I get rid of the HTML and HEAD tags when my DTML method is viewed," and someone else answers "You can't, that's in the browser" -- i.e., complete BS. If you don't know _how_ to verify a statement like that before posting it, or you don't have _time_ to verify it, then you should not post it at all. Let someone else handle it.
Before we get too hot under the collar about all this, let's step back a second and relax. There's no deliberate sowing of confusion going on here. People aren't deliberately posting bogus data as truth, or misrepresenting themselves as the fount of all Zope wisdom. So sometimes people post things that aren't correct, or are even blatantly false. Big Deal. The main thing they've revealed is that they don't understand something (like there aren't plenty of things we don't fully understand ourselves). People try and help other people. This is a Good Thing, is something to be lauded, and something to be encouraged. A problem however is that much of the time our knowledge is incompleat and the answers we give, are, well, incompleat. Worse, sometimes we jsut don't know enough, or in enough detail to realise that our answers are incompleat or even flat out wrong. So, being well intentioned and even earnest, we get corrected, and learn, and hopefully next time give better and more compleat answers. This isn't even something unique to Zope. I've seen the exact same process and mechanics going in in every technical forum I've been in, even if the subject is well defined, well documented, well explored and more than 100 years old. People are generally well intentioned, try to do the "right thing" and to help where they can. Sometimes their help is misguided. Whoopee. Give them a chance to re-educate and do better next time. If they don't, ___then___ call in the attack dogs. -- J C Lawrence Home: claw@kanga.nu ----------(*) Other: coder@kanga.nu --=| A man is as sane as he is dangerous to his environment |=--
J C LAwrence wrote:
Before we get too hot under the collar about all this, let's step back a second and relax. There's no deliberate sowing of confusion going on here. People aren't deliberately posting bogus data as truth, or misrepresenting themselves as the fount of all Zope wisdom.
I don't know anything about collar temperatures, but from the standpoint of a reader taking away some fresh nugget of misinformation from this list, it really doesn't matter how it got there. "There's no conspiracy" is not helpful news. What I am suggesting is simply that people take a moment to test their answers before posting them, where possible, and if the answer should be testable but they don't know how or don't want to test it, don't post a guess - let someone else take care of it. Sometimes the particular nature of the question asked, with databases or complex objects, etc, make testing an answer difficult. But in a lot of cases you could just dummy up the query results with ['Tom', 'Neff', '123 Elm St'...] and test the rest of your code in 15 seconds, and if you found a syntax error or missing parameter, wouldn't you rather fix it before posting to the world and making dozens of others fix it for you? When somebody asks "Where is the <dtml-tomato> code?" and you vaguely remember that it's in ZLegumes.py, I just wish people would CHECK first before posting. Don't just make stuff up, like the recent example with HTML/HEAD "coming from the browser." Personally, I don't care whether this problem is unique to Zope, or whether it demonstrates that Zope lacks the buddha nature, or whether a few readers don't care how many wrong answers appear, etc. I am not trying to discourage experienced DTML/Python programmers from making code suggestions, as long as they warn when it's untested and may need some tweaking. I am just trying to encourage people who CAN improve the quality of understanding here, to do so. And I think by now that anybody who was going to get my point has got it, so I'll give it a rest.
participants (2)
-
J C Lawrence -
Tom Neff