Talk:Object
From Erights
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
For example, even if majority uses the term [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_privilege POLP], we know why we reject it and use the term [[POLA]]. We are different, we speak differently, our words may have different meanings. This wiki can capture this. When it is important, we should retain our viewpoint regardless of the viewpoint of majority. | For example, even if majority uses the term [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_privilege POLP], we know why we reject it and use the term [[POLA]]. We are different, we speak differently, our words may have different meanings. This wiki can capture this. When it is important, we should retain our viewpoint regardless of the viewpoint of majority. | ||
| - | Wikipedia articles can be updated when | + | Wikipedia articles can be updated when our and majority's viewpoint will become consistent. |
[[User:Kosik|Kosik]] 04:19, 19 June 2009 (CDT) | [[User:Kosik|Kosik]] 04:19, 19 June 2009 (CDT) | ||
Revision as of 09:24, 19 June 2009
I have redirected a link of the term object (as it is used by us---people concerned with security) back to the article located at this wiki.
I think it is OK to refer to those Wikipedia articles that contain text with which we aggree but I think, and particularly if it is related to security, we can boldly use our definitions that depart from the majority's viewpoint.
For example, even if majority uses the term POLP, we know why we reject it and use the term POLA. We are different, we speak differently, our words may have different meanings. This wiki can capture this. When it is important, we should retain our viewpoint regardless of the viewpoint of majority.
Wikipedia articles can be updated when our and majority's viewpoint will become consistent.
Kosik 04:19, 19 June 2009 (CDT)
