Talk:Reliability

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

dictionary definition[edit]

Is including an actual dictionary definition here a good idea? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.17.92.51 (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Why not? --74.107.74.39 (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

for telecommunications see unreliability[edit]

Really? I thought they were reliable. Reliably bad.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.106.106.71 (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

gmhkyhkui,.u. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.131.98 (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources[edit]

Since so much of the infrastructure of Wikipedia is based on the notion of what is reliable, this definition seems a little bare.

My Toyota (for now, no jinxes) is reliable.

From a systemic POV, perhaps so. No evidence provided though.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to think that the New York Times is reliable.

Yes, but not systemic (e.g predictable) POV. Lots of different options, not all of which are "reliable" or have integrity.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it informative ? Sometimes no, sometimes yes.

See your NYT comment above. Reliable has nothing to do with informative in any case. NYT could be publsihing lies, let readers might find it "informative" even if less than truthful or useful. Reliable has a certain degree of information integrity to it.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it enjoyable ? Almost always.

N/A to the topic of reliability. Entertainment is not the objective.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC) --74.107.74.39 (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any objection to fleshing out the article a bit, and ideas of how to do so ?

Not from me, so long as you stick to the topic.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For example, why not actually list media and journals that are thought to be reliable for various topics ?

Not exactly NPOV material to discuss "various topics" on this page. Keep to the topic and it will balanced discussion. I'd welcome discussion on what is "reliable" and "unreliable" media, but this is not the page for it. Try media bias. --74.107.74.39 (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)--InnocentsAbroad2 (talk) 02:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability in Nines?[edit]

Sure. Reliabilty is often specified as 99%, 99.9%, or 99.99% (for example). But this is just a rule-of-thumb. I don't think this should be an assumption by any means. There are orders of magnitude performance difference (and costs) associated with such specifications, so there can be a big difference between 99.0% and 99.45% reliability.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 31 January 2012[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change interwiki link from ru:Надёжность to ru:Надёжность_(значения) because http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%91%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C article is similar to english article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability

Anna.nozik (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 05:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]