Hi. :)
I wanted to let you know that James Forrester is holding a second set of office hours to discuss VisualEditor. These are scheduled for 1700 UTC on 2 November and 0000 UTC on 3 November. For local time conversions, see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_hours and click on the starting time As always, logs will be posted on Meta (same page) after each hour completes.
Thanks!
Maggie
Hi Maggie -
Just to clarify, since 0000 UTC is a confusing time for most of us...is that the minute after 2359 UTC on November 2 (i.e., 7 hours after the first session), or is it the minute after 2359 UTC on November 3?
I've seen it used both ways so I just want to be clear.
Risker
On 30 October 2013 10:45, Maggie Dennis mdennis@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi. :)
I wanted to let you know that James Forrester is holding a second set of office hours to discuss VisualEditor. These are scheduled for 1700 UTC on 2 November and 0000 UTC on 3 November. For local time conversions, see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_hours and click on the starting time As always, logs will be posted on Meta (same page) after each hour completes.
Thanks!
Maggie
-- Maggie Dennis Senior Community Advocate Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 10/30/2013 11:20 AM, Risker wrote:
Just to clarify, since 0000 UTC is a confusing time for most of us
{{cn}}
I've heard that said very often (that 00:00 is somehow confusing to many people), but I've yet to actually see someone being actually confused by it.
There is exactly one minute labeled 00:00 in every day, and that is unambiguously the first of the day. It makes as much sense to be hesitant about it as it does wondering whether Jan 1 is part of the previous year or not*.
-- Marc
* Hint: It's not.
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.orgwrote:
On 10/30/2013 11:20 AM, Risker wrote:
Just to clarify, since 0000 UTC is a confusing time for most of us
{{cn}}
I've heard that said very often (that 00:00 is somehow confusing to many people), but I've yet to actually see someone being actually confused by it.
There is exactly one minute labeled 00:00 in every day, and that is unambiguously the first of the day. It makes as much sense to be hesitant about it as it does wondering whether Jan 1 is part of the previous year or not*.
-- Marc
- Hint: It's not.
Just a shot in the dark, but maybe Risker asked because she's confused. So, now you have at last seen someone confused by it! Congrats, and may all your future demands for citations supporting the personal reactions of other people be met so easily ;)
It's simple enough to use 0001 instead of 0000.
Newyorkbrad
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc@uberbox.org
wrote:
On 10/30/2013 11:20 AM, Risker wrote:
Just to clarify, since 0000 UTC is a confusing time for most of us
{{cn}}
I've heard that said very often (that 00:00 is somehow confusing to many people), but I've yet to actually see someone being actually confused by it.
There is exactly one minute labeled 00:00 in every day, and that is unambiguously the first of the day. It makes as much sense to be hesitant about it as it does wondering whether Jan 1 is part of the previous year or not*.
-- Marc
- Hint: It's not.
Just a shot in the dark, but maybe Risker asked because she's confused. So, now you have at last seen someone confused by it! Congrats, and may all your future demands for citations supporting the personal reactions of other people be met so easily ;) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 10/30/2013 11:45 AM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
It's simple enough to use 0001 instead of 0000.
It is, but if there /are/ in fact a large number of people being confused by it, then treating 00:00 as though it had special status by avoiding it will only *add* to that confusion rather than clarify the matter.
-- Marc
In an arbitration committee election a couple of years ago, I definitely recall confusion about whether a deadline of 0000 on a given date meant that the deadline expired as of the beginning of that date or the end of that date.
Time designations are human conventions, not laws of nature, and should be as clearly expressed as possible. Anyone who disagrees with me is free to state his or her opinion until 0000 today.
Newyorkbrad
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.orgwrote:
On 10/30/2013 11:45 AM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
It's simple enough to use 0001 instead of 0000.
It is, but if there /are/ in fact a large number of people being confused by it, then treating 00:00 as though it had special status by avoiding it will only *add* to that confusion rather than clarify the matter.
-- Marc
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 10/30/2013 11:51 AM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
Time designations are human conventions, not laws of nature, and should be as clearly expressed as possible. Anyone who disagrees with me is free to state his or her opinion until 0000 today.
That deadline has come and gone, as you well know. :-)
Yes, time designation are human conventions, but there is no more ambiguity about where 0000 lies there than there is about where 7 lies amongst the integers. If there are people who are confused and think that it comes after 11, they are simply in error and saying "starting at 8" when you mean "starting immediately after 6" to placate them doesn't help anyone.
-- Marc
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
Yes, time designation are human conventions, but there is no more ambiguity about where 0000 lies there than there is about where 7 lies amongst the integers. If there are people who are confused and think that it comes after 11, they are simply in error and saying "starting at 8" when you mean "starting immediately after 6" to placate them doesn't help anyone.
I guess we can keep discussing on semantics forever, or deciding that whatever we were talking about would start at 00:01 UTC
NMarco
On 30 October 2013 12:14, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
Yes, time designation are human conventions, but there is no more ambiguity about where 0000 lies there than there is about where 7 lies amongst the integers. If there are people who are confused and think that it comes after 11, they are simply in error and saying "starting at 8" when you mean "starting immediately after 6" to placate them doesn't help anyone.
I guess we can keep discussing on semantics forever, or deciding that whatever we were talking about would start at 00:01 UTC
NMarco _______________________________________________
Thank you, NMarco - that's exactly what I needed to know.
Risker
On 31/10/13 02:51, Newyorkbrad wrote:
In an arbitration committee election a couple of years ago, I definitely recall confusion about whether a deadline of 0000 on a given date meant that the deadline expired as of the beginning of that date or the end of that date.
Voting periods in SecurePoll are actually half-open intervals [S, E), i.e. "starting at exactly time S, proceeding up to but not including time E". So "E = 2013-11-03 00:00:00" is actually the correct way to express a voting interval that includes the whole of 2013-11-02 and nothing after that. However, I have been browbeaten into using 23:59:59 in more recent elections, thus stealing a whole second of potential voting time from our poor voters.
-- Tim Starling
I have to say, I'm amazed such a long discussion has occured over a question about the time for an office hours sessions.
*Steven Zhang* *cro0016@gmail.com*
On 31 October 2013 09:42, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 31/10/13 02:51, Newyorkbrad wrote:
In an arbitration committee election a couple of years ago, I definitely recall confusion about whether a deadline of 0000 on a given date meant that the deadline expired as of the beginning of that date or the end of that date.
Voting periods in SecurePoll are actually half-open intervals [S, E), i.e. "starting at exactly time S, proceeding up to but not including time E". So "E = 2013-11-03 00:00:00" is actually the correct way to express a voting interval that includes the whole of 2013-11-02 and nothing after that. However, I have been browbeaten into using 23:59:59 in more recent elections, thus stealing a whole second of potential voting time from our poor voters.
-- Tim Starling
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Oct 31, 2013 2:11 AM, "Steve Zhang" cro0016@gmail.com wrote:
I have to say, I'm amazed such a long discussion has occured over a question about the time for an office hours sessions.
I'm amazed nobody has brought up leap seconds yet, which make 23:59:59 roll over to 23:59:60 and would steal not one but two whole seconds in Tims example.
*Steven Zhang* *cro0016@gmail.com*
On 31 October 2013 09:42, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 31/10/13 02:51, Newyorkbrad wrote:
In an arbitration committee election a couple of years ago, I
definitely
recall confusion about whether a deadline of 0000 on a given date
meant
that the deadline expired as of the beginning of that date or the end
of
that date.
Voting periods in SecurePoll are actually half-open intervals [S, E), i.e. "starting at exactly time S, proceeding up to but not including time E". So "E = 2013-11-03 00:00:00" is actually the correct way to express a voting interval that includes the whole of 2013-11-02 and nothing after that. However, I have been browbeaten into using 23:59:59 in more recent elections, thus stealing a whole second of potential voting time from our poor voters.
-- Tim Starling
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 30 October 2013 11:47, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 10/30/2013 11:45 AM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
It's simple enough to use 0001 instead of 0000.
It is, but if there /are/ in fact a large number of people being confused by it, then treating 00:00 as though it had special status by avoiding it will only *add* to that confusion rather than clarify the matter.
Well, I personally know 4 people who told me that they'd missed the last session scheduled for 0000 because they thought of it being more than 24 hours after the first session. So I'm not the only one.
I work in an area where exact times are very important, and we don't ever use 0000 hours; we use 2359 or 23:59:59 or 00:01 or 00:00:01.
Risker
In German Nov 2, 24:00 equals Nov 3, 0:00. For further information have a look at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12-hour_clock#Confusion_at_noon_and_midnight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24-hour_clock#Midnight_00:00_and_24:00
Cheers Martin
2013/10/30 Newyorkbrad newyorkbrad@gmail.com
It's simple enough to use 0001 instead of 0000.
Newyorkbrad
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc@uberbox.org
wrote:
On 10/30/2013 11:20 AM, Risker wrote:
Just to clarify, since 0000 UTC is a confusing time for most of us
{{cn}}
I've heard that said very often (that 00:00 is somehow confusing to
many
people), but I've yet to actually see someone being actually confused
by
it.
There is exactly one minute labeled 00:00 in every day, and that is unambiguously the first of the day. It makes as much sense to be hesitant about it as it does wondering whether Jan 1 is part of the previous year or not*.
-- Marc
- Hint: It's not.
Just a shot in the dark, but maybe Risker asked because she's confused.
So,
now you have at last seen someone confused by it! Congrats, and may all your future demands for citations supporting the personal reactions of other people be met so easily ;) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Martin Rulsch wrote:
In German Nov 2, 24:00 equals Nov 3, 0:00. For further information have a look at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12-hour_clock#Confusion_at_noon_and_midnight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24-hour_clock#Midnight_00:00_and_24:00
Thanks for this. DaB. announced his retirement from the Toolserver at "FRIDAY, 3. January 2014 24:00 MEZ." and I had no idea (precisely when) that meant. Of course, what it really means is that I need to dump my Toolserver home directory by the end of 2013. :-/
MZMcBride
According to the road map, the Toolserver will not be shut down before June 30, 2014.
Cheers Martin
2013/11/16 MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com
Martin Rulsch wrote:
In German Nov 2, 24:00 equals Nov 3, 0:00. For further information have a look at Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12-hour_clock#Confusion_at_noon_and_midnight
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24-hour_clock#Midnight_00:00_and_24:00
Thanks for this. DaB. announced his retirement from the Toolserver at "FRIDAY, 3. January 2014 24:00 MEZ." and I had no idea (precisely when) that meant. Of course, what it really means is that I need to dump my Toolserver home directory by the end of 2013. :-/
MZMcBride
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 10/30/2013 8:39 AM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
On 10/30/2013 11:20 AM, Risker wrote:
Just to clarify, since 0000 UTC is a confusing time for most of us
{{cn}}
I've heard that said very often (that 00:00 is somehow confusing to many people), but I've yet to actually see someone being actually confused by it.
There is exactly one minute labeled 00:00 in every day, and that is unambiguously the first of the day.
It ought to be straightforward, yes, since in numeric sequences 00:00 clearly comes before other possible time values, and therefore is not nearly as confusing as, say, 12:00 (is noon AM and midnight PM, or is it the other way around?). However, it is definitely possible to overthink things, and as this conversation demonstrates, of all the faults of which our community is capable, overthinking things is one of the easiest for us to fall into.
--Michael Snow
Are you saying that our extensive discussion of the meaning of 0000 counts for naught?
Newyorkbrad
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Michael Snow wikipedia@frontier.comwrote:
On 10/30/2013 8:39 AM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
On 10/30/2013 11:20 AM, Risker wrote:
Just to clarify, since 0000 UTC is a confusing time for most of us
{{cn}}
I've heard that said very often (that 00:00 is somehow confusing to many people), but I've yet to actually see someone being actually confused by it.
There is exactly one minute labeled 00:00 in every day, and that is unambiguously the first of the day.
It ought to be straightforward, yes, since in numeric sequences 00:00 clearly comes before other possible time values, and therefore is not nearly as confusing as, say, 12:00 (is noon AM and midnight PM, or is it the other way around?). However, it is definitely possible to overthink things, and as this conversation demonstrates, of all the faults of which our community is capable, overthinking things is one of the easiest for us to fall into.
--Michael Snow
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.orgwikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org ?subject=**unsubscribe>
You know, I didn't believe them when they said Wikimedians could fight about *anything*...and then I read this thread.
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Newyorkbrad newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
Are you saying that our extensive discussion of the meaning of 0000 counts for naught?
Newyorkbrad
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Michael Snow <wikipedia@frontier.com
wrote:
On 10/30/2013 8:39 AM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
On 10/30/2013 11:20 AM, Risker wrote:
Just to clarify, since 0000 UTC is a confusing time for most of us
{{cn}}
I've heard that said very often (that 00:00 is somehow confusing to many people), but I've yet to actually see someone being actually confused by it.
There is exactly one minute labeled 00:00 in every day, and that is unambiguously the first of the day.
It ought to be straightforward, yes, since in numeric sequences 00:00 clearly comes before other possible time values, and therefore is not nearly as confusing as, say, 12:00 (is noon AM and midnight PM, or is it the other way around?). However, it is definitely possible to overthink things, and as this conversation demonstrates, of all the faults of which our community is capable, overthinking things is one of the easiest for
us
to fall into.
--Michael Snow
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l%3E,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.org<
wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org>
?subject=**unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Good one, Brad. :)
Katherine, I think you meant "about *nothing*". ;)
Maggie
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Katherine Casey < fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
You know, I didn't believe them when they said Wikimedians could fight about *anything*...and then I read this thread.
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Newyorkbrad newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
Are you saying that our extensive discussion of the meaning of 0000
counts
for naught?
Newyorkbrad
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Michael Snow <wikipedia@frontier.com
wrote:
On 10/30/2013 8:39 AM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
On 10/30/2013 11:20 AM, Risker wrote:
Just to clarify, since 0000 UTC is a confusing time for most of us
{{cn}}
I've heard that said very often (that 00:00 is somehow confusing to
many
people), but I've yet to actually see someone being actually confused
by
it.
There is exactly one minute labeled 00:00 in every day, and that is unambiguously the first of the day.
It ought to be straightforward, yes, since in numeric sequences 00:00 clearly comes before other possible time values, and therefore is not nearly as confusing as, say, 12:00 (is noon AM and midnight PM, or is
it
the other way around?). However, it is definitely possible to overthink things, and as this conversation demonstrates, of all the faults of
which
our community is capable, overthinking things is one of the easiest for
us
to fall into.
--Michael Snow
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l%3E,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.org<
wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org>
?subject=**unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 10/30/2013 8:58 AM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Michael Snow wikipedia@frontier.comwrote:
On 10/30/2013 8:39 AM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
On 10/30/2013 11:20 AM, Risker wrote:
Just to clarify, since 0000 UTC is a confusing time for most of us
{{cn}}
I've heard that said very often (that 00:00 is somehow confusing to many people), but I've yet to actually see someone being actually confused by it.
There is exactly one minute labeled 00:00 in every day, and that is unambiguously the first of the day.
It ought to be straightforward, yes, since in numeric sequences 00:00 clearly comes before other possible time values, and therefore is not nearly as confusing as, say, 12:00 (is noon AM and midnight PM, or is it the other way around?). However, it is definitely possible to overthink things, and as this conversation demonstrates, of all the faults of which our community is capable, overthinking things is one of the easiest for us to fall into.
--Michael Snow
Are you saying that our extensive discussion of the meaning of 0000 counts for naught?
Newyorkbrad
I am saying nothing of the kind.
--Michael Snow
It confuses me, too, Risker. :) I'm terrified of time conversions, so I rely on the link they give us on the office hours page itself. :D
It is 7 hours after the first session. The first time I listed a session at that time, I tried for 2400, but they couldn't process that one. I myself would prefer to just declare that hour "off limits", but alas.
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?hour=00&min=00&... should cover most localities.
Maggie
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Maggie -
Just to clarify, since 0000 UTC is a confusing time for most of us...is that the minute after 2359 UTC on November 2 (i.e., 7 hours after the first session), or is it the minute after 2359 UTC on November 3?
I've seen it used both ways so I just want to be clear.
Risker
On 30 October 2013 10:45, Maggie Dennis mdennis@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi. :)
I wanted to let you know that James Forrester is holding a second set of office hours to discuss VisualEditor. These are scheduled for 1700 UTC
on 2
November and 0000 UTC on 3 November. For local time conversions, see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_hours and click on the starting time As always, logs will be posted on Meta (same page) after each hour completes.
Thanks!
Maggie
-- Maggie Dennis Senior Community Advocate Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
* Risker wrote:
Just to clarify, since 0000 UTC is a confusing time for most of us...is that the minute after 2359 UTC on November 2 (i.e., 7 hours after the first session), or is it the minute after 2359 UTC on November 3?
I've seen it used both ways so I just want to be clear.
Could you elaborate on this confusion and where you think it is common? The 24 hour clock divides a day into 24 hours from 0 to 23 starting at midnight. 23:59 is 23 hours and 59 minutes after 00:00 on the same day.
2013-11-03T00:00Z --+ 2013-11-03T00:01Z | ... | 2013-11-03T00:59Z |-- November 3rd 2013-11-03T01:00Z | ... | 2013-11-03T23:59Z --+ 2013-11-04T00:00Z ...
The minute after 2013-11-03T23:59Z is on November 4th. I do understand that when setting a deadline you are better off giving the end of a day as deadline so the time is up when the day is over, otherwise people see a contradiction and get confused, but beyond that I've not encountered this particular confusion.
On 30/10/13 16:32, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
- Risker wrote:
Just to clarify, since 0000 UTC is a confusing time for most of us...is that the minute after 2359 UTC on November 2 (i.e., 7 hours after the first session), or is it the minute after 2359 UTC on November 3?
I've seen it used both ways so I just want to be clear.
Could you elaborate on this confusion and where you think it is common? The 24 hour clock divides a day into 24 hours from 0 to 23 starting at midnight. 23:59 is 23 hours and 59 minutes after 00:00 on the same day.
2013-11-03T00:00Z --+ 2013-11-03T00:01Z | ... | 2013-11-03T00:59Z |-- November 3rd 2013-11-03T01:00Z | ... | 2013-11-03T23:59Z --+ 2013-11-04T00:00Z ...
The minute after 2013-11-03T23:59Z is on November 4th. I do understand that when setting a deadline you are better off giving the end of a day as deadline so the time is up when the day is over, otherwise people see a contradiction and get confused, but beyond that I've not encountered this particular confusion.
It's probably more common in places where people use 12-hour time for more things. Because many 12-hour conventions make absolutely no sense, folks can learn to expect time standards to make no sense and then don't know whether or not to expect 24-hour time to make sense because the precedent they're used to says it may not either.
So while 24-hour time does follow fairly logical conventions, if we're less used to using it we won't necessarily know to expect that, which might explain some of the confusion.
Has someone already started a book about wikidramas? One chapter called "00:00" would be a good one.
As far as I know, just in German and about German topics: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:10_Jahre_Wikipedia/Wikipedia-Buch https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alles_%C3%BCber_Wikipedia_und_die_Menschen_hin...; for an English abstract see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Das_Wikipedia-Buch
Cheers Martin
2013/10/30 Everton Zanella Alvarenga everton.alvarenga@okfn.org
Has someone already started a book about wikidramas? One chapter called "00:00" would be a good one.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/10/13 16:32, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
- Risker wrote:
Just to clarify, since 0000 UTC is a confusing time for most of us...is that the minute after 2359 UTC on November 2 (i.e., 7 hours after the first session), or is it the minute after 2359 UTC on November 3?
I've seen it used both ways so I just want to be clear.
Could you elaborate on this confusion and where you think it is common? The 24 hour clock divides a day into 24 hours from 0 to 23 starting at midnight. 23:59 is 23 hours and 59 minutes after 00:00 on the same day.
2013-11-03T00:00Z --+ 2013-11-03T00:01Z | ... | 2013-11-03T00:59Z |-- November 3rd 2013-11-03T01:00Z | ... | 2013-11-03T23:59Z --+ 2013-11-04T00:00Z ...
The minute after 2013-11-03T23:59Z is on November 4th. I do understand that when setting a deadline you are better off giving the end of a day as deadline so the time is up when the day is over, otherwise people see a contradiction and get confused, but beyond that I've not encountered this particular confusion.
It's probably more common in places where people use 12-hour time for more things. Because many 12-hour conventions make absolutely no sense, folks can learn to expect time standards to make no sense and then don't know whether or not to expect 24-hour time to make sense because the precedent they're used to says it may not either.
So while 24-hour time does follow fairly logical conventions, if we're less used to using it we won't necessarily know to expect that, which might explain some of the confusion.
I think you're probably onto something there, Isarra. :) (I hate the 12 a.m./p.m. confusion.)
The Combined Communications Electronics Board at least at one point recommended avoiding 0000 because of its potential to confuse - see http://jcs.dtic.mil/j6/cceb/acps/acp121/ACP121I.pdf, section 327 (page 25 of the pdf). (Thank you, Wikipedia. :D)
Maggie
On 30 October 2013 12:32, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoermi@gmx.net wrote:
- Risker wrote:
Just to clarify, since 0000 UTC is a confusing time for most of us...is that the minute after 2359 UTC on November 2 (i.e., 7 hours after the
first
session), or is it the minute after 2359 UTC on November 3?
I've seen it used both ways so I just want to be clear.
Could you elaborate on this confusion and where you think it is common? The 24 hour clock divides a day into 24 hours from 0 to 23 starting at midnight. 23:59 is 23 hours and 59 minutes after 00:00 on the same day.
2013-11-03T00:00Z --+ 2013-11-03T00:01Z | ... | 2013-11-03T00:59Z |-- November 3rd 2013-11-03T01:00Z | ... | 2013-11-03T23:59Z --+ 2013-11-04T00:00Z ...
The minute after 2013-11-03T23:59Z is on November 4th. I do understand that when setting a deadline you are better off giving the end of a day as deadline so the time is up when the day is over, otherwise people see a contradiction and get confused, but beyond that I've not encountered this particular confusion. --
Bjoern, it might just be that I am old and remember the ancient days when the 24-hour clock was first coming into use outside of the military; it was common back then to see a time like 00:01 written as 24:01. The fact that we have a date change creates the mental expectation that there will be a day's end before the next meeting, but for people in North America, this is early afternoon vs late afternoon/early evening.
But yeah....I just asked a simple question, and I've got a nice answer. I've also got a fair amount of slogging. Let's end this thread now, okay?
Risker
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org