While the articles author made a contribution that he thought he was helping his community - the discussion responses speak otherwise. The SSC community stepped in to clarify, augment and correct misinformation in the article. I laud the members of the SSC community that stepped up and openly discussed this article.

A while back there was a rather involved discussion about 'vetting' the QOTD. Maybe now an active 'practice' of a high level 'vetting' for all of the submitted articles for content review should be thought about. While it is great that the 'experience' and 'knowledge' in the community stepped in, just think of the potential damage that may have been mistakenly caused by those more junior thinking the article was 'gospel'.