I suggested that if there is no review process, it is a systemic issue, and that if there is a review process that failed to catch something this egregious, it is a systemic issue. My supposition is that regardless of how the publishing process works, there is a systemic failure here, and I made no claims as to how it actually works, so I'm not sure where the "you're incorrect on how it works" is coming from.

You said it takes multiple people screwing up, implying that publishing content had multiple gates/reviewers.

It doesn’t.

> or at least it should.

Do helpfully note the OR clause.

And I'm suggesting that having no review process in place is a failure of management, ie. multiple people.

But if there are no gates, doesn't that mean the people who should have put the gates in there screwed up?

There is no singular publishing org at MSFT. Each product publishes its own docs, generally following a style guide. But the doc process is up to the doc owner(s).

I think you're barking up the wrong tree here.

What?

This is how it works. There are too many people here like the op that make assumptions on what the process is/should be.

There is no such thing as "making an assumption" on what a process "should be". I am asserting what it should be. A multitrillion dollar company should absolutely have a robust review process in place. If one single person can submit plagiarised and defective material onto an official platform that implicates the company as a whole in copyright infringement, management has failed, ergo multiple people have failed, ergo the failure is systemic.

It is extremely well-known that individual humans make mistakes. Therefore, any well-functioning system has guards in place to catch mistakes, such that it takes multiple people making mistakes for an individual mistake to cascade to system failure. A system that does not have these guards in place at all, and allows one individual's failure to immediately become a system failure, is a bad system, and management staff who implement bad systems are as responsible for their failure as the individual who made the mistake. Let us be grateful that you do not work in an engineering or aviation capacity, given the great lengths you are going to defend the "correctness" of a bad system.

My dog does this thing where she picks a stick and gets you to pull on it, and she will pull on her end, too. She gets very focused on it. Pulling on the stick is the most important thing to her in that moment, when in fact it's just a stick she chose to turn into this tug of war.

That's not entirely unlike what you're doing here. You latched onto a misunderstanding of OP's intent, and by making a thing out of it got people to pull back, and now you also keep tugging on your end.

Except she does it on purpose and enjoys it, while I think you did it inadvertently and you do not seem that happy. But then, you're not a dog, of course.

You could stop pulling on the stick. I do enjoy these doggy similes, though. :)

This is a perfect description. I've probably been the dog at some point.

p_ing, see my nearby comment about what we mean by "multiple". Does that comment make any false "assumptions"? Or, is it you who are mistaken, persistently failing to understand what your interlocutors are saying?

It can be hard to resist.

That seems to further make the case that it's a systemic problem.

The organization would have more guardrails in place if it prioritized "don't break things" over "move fast".

There have been no Gates at Microsoft for a long time.

How hard is this to understand.

Person A, possibly a vendor, pushed the content. Person B, working for MSFT, approved this process where the vendor could just push content, and vetted/instructed the vendor, and trusted that this vendor/process would represent the standards of the MSFT brand even amid the temptations of new tooling. Thus, at least 2 people screwed up, and probably more, because MSFT is a large corp and the vendor might be, too.

A common word for saying "2 or more" is "multiple". Multiple people screwed up. Learn to fucking count.

This is correct. It just takes one person to review it and you’re good to go.

There’s also a service that rates your grammar/clarity and you have to be above a certain score.

I'll quote the relevant part of the parent post:

> that is in itself a failure of the system

... and add some Beer flavor: POSIWID (the purpose of a system is what it does)

I've seen better review processes in hobby projects

Neither deadlines nor cheap work for hire help any sort of review process, while an hobby project is normally done by someone who cares.