S
spinoza1111
This is a quote from Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of Living
Persons:
"Wikipedia contains biographies of people who, while notable enough
for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise
restraint and include only material relevant to their notability,
focusing on high quality secondary sources. Material published by the
subject may be used, but with caution; see above. Material that may
adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special
care; in many countries repeating defamatory claims is actionable, and
there is additional protection for people who are not public figures."
* Herb Schildt is "not generally well known"
* Owing to my first BLP complaint, in early 2009, the critical
material currently in the Reception section exercises restraint, but
the first and most important reference, CTCN-4 by Seebach.
* Neither CTCN-3 nor CTCN-4 are high quality sources. They contain
errors including illiterate constructions such as "clear" to mean
"clear and false". They also claim that all C main programs must have
the syntax required only in what the Standard calls a Hosted program,
which is an error. Neither would pass a technical edit.
* CTCN-3 has adversely affected Herb's reputation for 15 years and
was the reason the wikipedia artice was created; between 2006 and
2009, this article was completely NPOV and very disturbing.
* The claims made in the Reception section and in the referenced
CTCN-4 are defamatory under the law even if true in part. This is
because Herb is a private individual who is accused in the article of
serious malpractice when, in fact, he worked collegially with McGraw-
Hill technical reviewers (who are also defamed in this drive-by
shooting).
Why are the claims defamatory? Because they are used to "prove" that
Herb didn't know C and chose to write about it anyway. This is based
on code examples/snippets which in no typical computer book work in
all environments without change in some, and which is to be used after
the reader has comprehended their use.
It is clear that McGraw Hill did not choose, in Herb, a world-class
expert on the C programming language. Instead they chose a person who
Seebach admits by misusing "clear" is a good writer.
When most computer books and large programs are delivered under the
law with hundreds or thousands of bugs, it is defamatory to single
Herb Schildt out, and it is scapegoating him for the incompetence
found elsewhere. Seebach has exposed wikipedia to the potential for
serious financial loss and should be banned from wikipedia for that
reason.
Persons:
"Wikipedia contains biographies of people who, while notable enough
for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise
restraint and include only material relevant to their notability,
focusing on high quality secondary sources. Material published by the
subject may be used, but with caution; see above. Material that may
adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special
care; in many countries repeating defamatory claims is actionable, and
there is additional protection for people who are not public figures."
* Herb Schildt is "not generally well known"
* Owing to my first BLP complaint, in early 2009, the critical
material currently in the Reception section exercises restraint, but
the first and most important reference, CTCN-4 by Seebach.
* Neither CTCN-3 nor CTCN-4 are high quality sources. They contain
errors including illiterate constructions such as "clear" to mean
"clear and false". They also claim that all C main programs must have
the syntax required only in what the Standard calls a Hosted program,
which is an error. Neither would pass a technical edit.
* CTCN-3 has adversely affected Herb's reputation for 15 years and
was the reason the wikipedia artice was created; between 2006 and
2009, this article was completely NPOV and very disturbing.
* The claims made in the Reception section and in the referenced
CTCN-4 are defamatory under the law even if true in part. This is
because Herb is a private individual who is accused in the article of
serious malpractice when, in fact, he worked collegially with McGraw-
Hill technical reviewers (who are also defamed in this drive-by
shooting).
Why are the claims defamatory? Because they are used to "prove" that
Herb didn't know C and chose to write about it anyway. This is based
on code examples/snippets which in no typical computer book work in
all environments without change in some, and which is to be used after
the reader has comprehended their use.
It is clear that McGraw Hill did not choose, in Herb, a world-class
expert on the C programming language. Instead they chose a person who
Seebach admits by misusing "clear" is a good writer.
When most computer books and large programs are delivered under the
law with hundreds or thousands of bugs, it is defamatory to single
Herb Schildt out, and it is scapegoating him for the incompetence
found elsewhere. Seebach has exposed wikipedia to the potential for
serious financial loss and should be banned from wikipedia for that
reason.