I think your comment was downvoted because it's a silly thing to focus on.
> but maybe Wikipedia is leaving off a lot of relevant history on the Chaos Engineering article then.
This is certainly true.
> but maybe Wikipedia is leaving off a lot of relevant history on the Chaos Engineering article then.
This is certainly true.
Edit: Funny how my original comment is downvoted for contradictory reasons, both because "obviously that was irrelevant to the state of the art in chaos engineering", and because "oh don't worry, that's relevant, they just discuss it in other contexts".