| |||||||||||||
Ext4 data corruption troubleExt4 data corruption troublePosted Oct 25, 2012 13:33 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304)In reply to: Ext4 data corruption trouble by man_ls Parent article: Ext4 data corruption trouble [Updated]
That FTL neutrino case is actually more similar than you thought -- scientific paper publication (and, these days, arxiv) is directly analogous to development lists like lkml -- it is where the practitioners in the field communicate. So having hundreds of scientists sign that paper is quite expected -- they worked on the collaboration, after all. What is unjustified is for the general media to pick up something like that, always and necessarily a work-in-progress, and consider it a finished deal, certain, unchanging.
LWN's coverage of this was much much better, emphasising the unclear and under-investigation nature of the thing.
(Log in to post comments)
A few things Posted Oct 25, 2012 14:03 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Actually, the "neutrino anomaly" team gave several press conferences and a webcast. Without that attention-seeking part the story would probably not have blown so big. Imagine if Tso had given a press conference explaining the ext4 bug, instead of just dealing with it?Also, hundreds of names on a paper may be standard practice, but it is ridiculous. Somebody should compute something like the Einstein index but dividing each result by the number of collaborators. Finally, it appears from the wikipedia article that the Gran Sasso scientists had sat on their results for six months before publishing them. Even though I called for the same embargo in my post, that they did somehow only makes it worse -- but then life is unfair.
|
|||||||||||||