Year 2000 problem

Article summary

on 3 January 2000, incorrectly displaying the year as 1900. English translation: "Welcome to the Central School of Nantes 12:09 3 January 1900." The Year 2000 problem (Y2K) was the potential for computer errors on the Gregorian calendar related to the formatting and storage of calendar data for dates in and after the year 2000. Many programs represented four-digit years with only the final two digits, e.g. 1985 as 85, making the year 2000 indistinguishable from 1900. Computer systems' inability to distinguish dates correctly had the potential to bring down worldwide infrastructures for computer-reliant industries. In the years leading up to the turn of the millennium, the public gradually became aware of the "Y2K scare", and individual companies predicted the global damage caused by the bug would require anything between $400 billion and $600 billion to rectify. A lack of clarity regarding the potential dangers of the bug led some to stock up on food, water, and firearms, purchase backup generators, and withdraw large sums of money in anticipation of a computer-induced apocalypse. Contrary to published expectations, few major errors occurred in 2000. Supporters of the Y2K remediation effort argued that that was primarily due to the pre-emptive action of many computer programmers and information technology experts.…

Key claims

1. date of birth: 1900 — source: Wikipedia · confidence 0.95
2. date of birth: 1900 — source: Wikipedia · confidence 0.95
3. date of birth: 1900 — source: Wikipedia · confidence 0.95
4. date of birth: 2000-01-01 — source: Wikipedia · confidence 0.95
5. date of establishment: 2000 — source: Wikipedia · confidence 0.95
6. date of establishment: 1998 — source: Wikipedia · confidence 0.95
7. date of establishment: 1999 — source: Wikipedia · confidence 0.95
8. date of establishment: 2000 — source: Wikipedia · confidence 0.95
9. date of establishment: 1999-12-31 — source: Wikipedia · confidence 0.95
10. publication date: 2000 — source: Wikipedia · confidence 0.95
11. publication date: 1999 — source: Wikipedia · confidence 0.95

Discussion questions

1. Summarise the article in your own words. Which single claim would you verify first, and why?
2. The record states that the date of birth is "1900". What evidence would count against this claim?
3. The record states that the date of birth is "1900". What evidence would count against this claim?
4. The record states that the date of birth is "1900". What evidence would count against this claim?
5. The record states that the date of birth is "2000-01-01". What evidence would count against this claim?
6. The record states that the date of establishment is "2000". What evidence would count against this claim?
7. The record states that the date of establishment is "1998". What evidence would count against this claim?
8. The record states that the date of establishment is "1999". What evidence would count against this claim?
9. The record states that the date of establishment is "2000". What evidence would count against this claim?
10. The record states that the date of establishment is "1999-12-31". What evidence would count against this claim?
11. The record states that the publication date is "2000". What evidence would count against this claim?
12. The record states that the publication date is "1999". What evidence would count against this claim?
13. Which claim in this article is most likely to be revised as the sources update? How would you check its current status?
14. If two sources disagreed about one of these facts, what would you need in order to trust one over the other?

Bibliography

1. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1376356307