Good to see a mix of quantitative and qualitative measurements in there. While uptime and customer satisfaction are probably correlated, there are probably more factors influencing the latter.
You'd also want to limit it to the most vetted and monitored articles to prevent someone from the outside from leaving coded messages in articles. I figure the more popular articles could spot strange updates and eliminate them.
There's also nothing urgent about the access they get. Articles could be restricted to 1 or 2 years old to further prevent the transfer of timely information.
Honestly, is this really that big of a concern? This sounds like something that may be necessary for the OBLs or <murderous drug lord>s of the world. But in general, this level of paranoia about being able to communicate with the outside world is just insane. It only serves as an easy excuse to exert an obscene level of control over these people's lives.
From what I've seen (in documentaries and the show lockup raw) violent offenders will try to harm the families of prison personnel and others by sending and receiving orders. It's a real problem. It's not as easy as restricting access from just these people because they can force other inmates with Internet access to do their bidding.
Its possible that lower security prisoners can be treated differently.
Sure, the process in my mind is the same as when they are given a TV. There is some level of filtering on what information they can obtain and a time delay of when they obtain it. Regardless there is so much information out there that even if you drop entire categories from a Wikipedia dump, it would still be left with a substantial ammount of knowledge for inmates to learn from.
Isn't worrying about coded info coming into the prison a bit silly, given that inmates have visiting rights? What kind of code could you put into a wikipedia article that you couldn't provide in a face-to-face?
There is a similar article published in a notable bioinformatics journal explaining how errors were introduced when Excel was used and altered gene names irreversibly.
An analogy I always like to use is: would you object to a team visiting your home, searching through all your physical and electronic belongings and then replacing everything exactly as they found it?
Not a fair generalization. I've seen very big consultancy firms only accept Word (or raw text) as input so their systems can filter you out before a human eye sees your application.
Also, I think head hunters want text so their software can categorize you and match you with jobs. While LaTeX makes it look pretty, it might not always be feasible to use it.
When most of us say something like that, what we really mean is "There are many reasons you might not be able to cope with a CV in a format other than Word, but all of them imply a high probability that I do not want to work with you."
It doesn't matter all that much whether the employer is looking for somone who uses underpowered tools to produce their documents, or wants you to spend a lot of time preparing a CV but can't be bothered to have a real person spend half a minute looking over it before binning you, or has inflexible work practices that favour absolute conformity over using tools and processes that make each member of staff more effective. They all reflect badly on the employer's hiring process, and by implication on the people you are likely to be working with if you get the job.
Perhaps rollypolly did want to single out one case, or maybe (s)he was just being diplomatic.
"There are many reasons you might not be able to cope with a CV in a format other than Word, but all of them imply a high probability that I do not want to work with you."
This. When I have recruiters calling me based on my very plain CV done in LaTeX, especially when I'm not even looking for work, I don't really feel any urge to respond to an interview request that starts with "please send us your resume in Microsoft Word." Some firms use strict criteria to whittle down their list of applicants; I feel justified in doing the same.
