4 ms·
The danger would be 4chan, etc, changing info that has potentially life-threatening implications.
by TrevorJ 17y ago
The danger would be 4chan, etc, changing info that has potentially life-threatening implications.
- mixmax 17y agothese things tend to be reversed pretty quickly. I have an ongoing feud with a friend of mine where my part of the feud is to refer to him as a juggler as much and publicly as possible (He hates jugglers, and thinks they should all be shot, hence..) As a joke I created a Wikipedia article with his name, and spent some time writing up an entry about the great juggler that he was. The plan was to send it to all of his friends. I submitted the article, composed an e-mail and refreshed the Wikipedia page to make sure it worked. The time it took me to write the e-mail was long enough for some editor to delete the article.
- TrevorJ 17y agoAll this is true, however there is still a non-zero risk involved. Especially when human life is involved.
- freetard 17y agoZero risk doesn't exist.
- TrevorJ 17y agoYou are correct, which is why I qualified the statement by pointing out the human life factor. If human life is involved, and the risk can be mitigated then it should be. Nothing is risk free, but when you are dealing with something that is irreplaceable, even small reductions in risk are worthy of consideration.
- anigbrowl 17y agoI wouldn't worry about that. There are no lulz to be had if nobody notices, and wiki vandalism is so easy (and so easily correctable) that posting a wiki alteration on 4chan is usually derided as lame - so much so that some other 4channer will likely revert and alert, since there are more lulz to be had from getting the vandal's IP banned from wikipedia. Further, 4chan is not so amoral as to find incorrect pharmaceutical information lulz-worthy...it's more likely that they'd add the name of someone they didn't like to an article about embarrassing social diseases, eg suggesting Christopher Poole has a raging case of syphilis. I can't quantify this of course, but I'd say the rare but real risks from bad QC and errors in pharma documentation (typos or oversights on dosage level, contraindications, half-life and so on) are a much greater risk than that presented by /b/tards.