We’re now well into 2010 and it’s still obviously wrong
In a previous post, I mentioned how storage vendors were predicting that the amount of information would be doubling every 11 hours by the year 2010. They were saying this to get you to buy their products to help you keep pace with that overwhelming amount of information, of course.
We're now well into 2010 and it should be fairly clear by now that the amount of information really isn't doubling every 11 hours. It actually should have been obvious to most people that this particular claim was obviously wrong, but that didn't stop it from getting published in a few academic papers and being widely cited by storage vendors.
This led me to develop the following warning label that could be included in papers of questionable accuracy:
I'm not really sure that many editors of all publications really worry about the accuracy of what they publish, however. I used to review submissions to a few publications, but after I recommended that they not publish various submissions because they were just plain wrong, the editors stopped asking me to review submissions for them.
There's certainly a place for discussing controversial ideas, but I really don't like the idea of getting things into print that are obviously wrong, like the wildly inaccurate claim that the amount of information would be doubling every 11 hours by the year 2010. I would have recommended that that particular paper not be accepted. Apparently someone else didn't think so.