CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Wiki > Talk:Ansys FAQ

Talk:Ansys FAQ

From CFD-Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Criticism of the ANSYS FAQ)
(Discussion regarding "Ansys FAQ")
 
Line 9: Line 9:
--[[User:Roberthealy1|Roberthealy1]] 16:42, 21 August 2007 (MDT)
--[[User:Roberthealy1|Roberthealy1]] 16:42, 21 August 2007 (MDT)
 +
 +
: What do you mean by "entry"?  Do you mean the entire thing, or parts of it?  It probably could be renamed as a CFX FAQ, but that would not address the other issue that you raise about being able to verify it.  I'm not sure that the normal rules on such things apply in this particular instance.  For example, there are things in the [[Fluent FAQ]] that cannot be verified in any real sense because the features are essentially undocumented.  It is explicitly associated with the Fluent forum, but that doesn't change the fact that the (good) point you raise applies there, too.  On the propietary issue: I don't think they would claim it as long as it hasn't been copied from their materials.--[[User:Jasond|Jasond]] 20:24, 21 August 2007 (MDT)

Latest revision as of 02:24, 22 August 2007

Discussion regarding "Ansys FAQ"

Hi,

I really dislike this entry. I don't feel that it is in accordance with any of the CFD-Wiki:Policy community guidelines, for instance it is not NPOV, I cannot verify it (no references or citations are provided) and I have no idea whether ANSYS may consider this information proprietary.

I think that, at best it should be zoned to a forum of it's own and removed from the educational resource that is CFD-Wiki.

Any opinions appreciated!

--Roberthealy1 16:42, 21 August 2007 (MDT)

What do you mean by "entry"? Do you mean the entire thing, or parts of it? It probably could be renamed as a CFX FAQ, but that would not address the other issue that you raise about being able to verify it. I'm not sure that the normal rules on such things apply in this particular instance. For example, there are things in the Fluent FAQ that cannot be verified in any real sense because the features are essentially undocumented. It is explicitly associated with the Fluent forum, but that doesn't change the fact that the (good) point you raise applies there, too. On the propietary issue: I don't think they would claim it as long as it hasn't been copied from their materials.--Jasond 20:24, 21 August 2007 (MDT)
My wiki