Talk:LexisNexis/Archives/2021

Challenging bizarre edits by User:Pi314m on 3 December 2020

The edits are so awful it looks like User:Pi314m is trying to deliberately vandalize the article. What is "LexBourne"?! I am going to revert them in a week or so unless I see some good reasons fast. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

A comment I have from that edit reads:

"Quite a few re-uses of Bourne book. Combined into ONE, plus {{rp|p.xxx}}

does that explain the goal of the edit? Pi314m (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Not really. Plus you actually made the references to that cited work harder to use.

You're not related to any healthcare providers, are you? The first thing everyone learns in health care is Primum non nocere. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, you still haven't explained what is LexBourne. The burden is on the editor making changes to the longstanding consensus version of the article to explain their edits. --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I still don't see any explanation. I am going to proceed with reverting User:Pi314m's edits, which appear to be deliberate vandalism of the article. If you've got a grudge against LexisNexis, take it up directly with the company. Vandalizing their article on Wikipedia with garbage edits is a clear violation of WP:NOT and grounds for a permanent block. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Promotional Tag

I removed the promotional language tag from the page after rewriting the majority of it in a neutral and factual manner. 60clawsand20paws (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Excessive condensation of article

I am proposing to revert User:60clawsand20paws's edits on 6 August 2021. I will concede that the original text was too long, but it's important to read the underlying texts cited before attempting to condense a historical narrative. The resulting text fails verification against the cited sources in numerous ways. In some respects it is simply wrong, and in others it is technically correct but as written does not make sense because too much background information has been removed. The errors inserted by User:60clawsand20paws's edits include:

• The current text states that LexisNexis was "based" on Horty's work. This gives Horty more credit than he is due. As Bourne and Hahn stress, Horty's early work at Pittsburgh merely inspired OSBA to build its own project in Ohio, independently of Horty. OSBA did study Horty's work but started from scratch and did not borrow his code.
• The current text omits the explanation of what is OBAR, meaning that the use of that acronym comes out of nowhere and will bewilder readers.
• The current text omits the explanation of where Data Central came from and what it was intended for, how it was a repurposed project that turned out to be a poor fit for legal research, how Mead was a paper manufacturer that picked up Data for printing technology and wasn't really focused on Data Central, how Wilson's group recommended that Mead start over from scratch, and how Wilson then refused to carry out his own recommendation when Mead put him in charge. As a result, the remaining narrative about Rubin's promotion and subsequent actions makes no sense, because the why behind those events is missing.
• The current text omits the important fact that computer literacy was rare at the time, which explains why Rubin's work was so important. Most people in the 1970s had never seen a computer in person, let alone a computer terminal, and had no idea what to do if they encountered one. It was Rubin who grasped the intrinsic value of CALR, and more importantly, the necessity of teaching lawyers that investing the time to learn how to use CALR could be of great value to them and their clients. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Seeing no objections, I will proceed. --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)