User talk:LU/Archive1

From CastleCopsWiki

I just wanted to say excellent writing. --Paul 22:41, 20 October 2006 (EDT)

Excellent indeed. I must disagree about the articles being fabricated out of thin air, however. It is obvious that there was a good bit of effort expended on data collection/presentation and research. Self deprecation doesn't really become you, my friend. The master's thesis sounds interesting although I was under the impression that you had already earned the MS and that your field tended more toward AI. Perhaps I was mistaken. --Oldfrog 12:34, 21 January 2007 (EST)

Lu would you mind telling me please, why you seem to think that you are the only contributor here? There are lots of articles on the wiki not just the ones you have contributed to. We have never suggested that the articles here are "expert" created. Articles have been created here because of things said by members in the forums, who had never used a wiki and didn't understand the formatting. To someone who has never used one it can be a little intimidating. You complain about us having a private wiki section, yet you have never asked why we have it. Did the thought ever cross your mind the it is because the information in there isn't for public consumption? You complain about there being no link to the wiki, but the 4th link down in the Security Central menu is a link to the wiki, it has been there for as long as the wiki has been here. --Robin 17:44, 27 January 2007 (EST)

Robin, I do not think I'm the only contributor here. I'm one of the major contributors in the open part of the wiki, that cannot be denied right? Most of you staff besides a few don't touch that part though you seem to be starting to.

As such the irony is that the true wiki pages worked on by many experts is invisble to the public, even wiki articles written by staff on the open wiki are just basically one man shows, no better than a blog or a webpage!

Also you seem determined to put a negative interpretion on whatever I write. I don't know how you can think I'm complaining about the private wiki! I'm just listing different uses of a wiki. I know very well there are good reasons to have closed wikis (what makes you think I don't?).You would organise a Wiki very differently, depending on how you want to use it. What I'm saying is the fact that Castlecops Wiki uses both is a source of confusion. And it seems most staff prefer to work in the closed wiki which correct me if I'm wrong is totally different from the article writing kind of tasks.Also, I didn't say there is no link, but it is hidden and took me a couple of minutes to find.

You say the wiki isn't expert approved? That is good to clarify. Then why the talk about things in beta and all that? That clearly sugguests a validation process by experts. --LU 18:00, 27 January 2007 (EST)

Contents 1 False authority examples 2 Comments removed from User Page 3 The pursuit of one's feelings 4 A thank you for honouring a request

[edit] False authority examples

I'd be interested in reading those false statements by those in 'authority'. Lets be fair, we're all human and make mistakes, but to make comments without citing source leaves it open to skepticism. Please provide your source. --Paul 13:22, 28 January 2007 (EST)

Paul, why the heck do you assume I'm talking about 'you' (in whatever sense of the word)! You are not the only ones claiming authorthy you know. Besides if you read what I wrote carefully, I was talking more about how people perceive computer experts (thought that might lead to the problem of overconfident experts) E.g People who think what Castlecops

states about firewalls (say) in the wiki must be accurate, because CC has experts in the field of removing malware. That kind of thing.

I can say though that I have come across haughty experts (not just in the field of computer science) who overstep the limits of their expertise and are just too proud to say "I don't know" or "My opinion in this case will be no better than anyone else's". You probably know a few professors or heard of celebrity scientists like that.

Also it's not just a matter of making false statements (though eventually this will occur), but also an attiudinal aspect to it. If you really want a closer example, I would refer to the assumption that because one is castlecops staff one's opinion on security software is automatically better than that of any none-staff member.

As for specific false statements, you already know that they exist, me pointing out a few (minor or major) erronous factual posts made by confident sounding staff, won't make any difference will it? --LU 13:57, 29 January 2007 (EST)

[edit] Comments removed from User Page

The following comments, originally posted on the user page for LU, have been removed from there and placed here instead:

Regarding CC staff and MS MVPs: You have a somewhat distorted view of CC staff and MS MVPs that I really feel the need to correct. Most of us on the staff here began as regular members and were invited to become staff based on our participation in whatever area of the site we participated in. While subject knowledge plays a part it really depends more on how you interact with others. Behavior that is consonant with the Mission Statement and AUP is the primary consideration in being selected to staff and subject matter knowledge is secondary. Similarly, MS asks some probing questions of those nominated as prospective MVPs and degrees and honors are not on the list. MS is interested in verifiable evidence of how a candidate has helped users in a volunteer capacity. Individuals selected to either may very well be expert in one area or another but the title does not necessarily imply that. --Oldfrog 20:39, 27 January 2007 (EST)

Sounds exactly like what I heard. That MS MVP's are just MS's way of getting free tech support staff! :) But seriously, you seem to be saying that helpfulness is all, expertise is secondary. Does that mean a well meaning person but with no skill what so ever, can be MS MVP? That we are expected to treat MS MVPs has just helpful people but with no greater respect for expertise than another ordinary member? What does the "p" stand for again? I know it's fairly easy to get one of your castlecop staff titles (the lower level ones seem to just require the ability to post on the forum), but neverthless I have seen the amazing effect on some people who let even the smallest title go to their heads. Abrusive? Perhaps, but true neverthless. --LU 12:47, 29 January 2007 (EST)

Regarding the trustworthy nature of the CC Wiki articles: Excellent questions which, as you say, are unanswered. We are still feeling our way here. We certainly want articles to be trustworthy but don't have established policies/procedures in place to ensure that which results in some delays bringing content from "beta" to "final". --Oldfrog 20:39, 27 January 2007 (EST)

Regarding the purpose of the CC Wiki: The Wiki here was created as an exploratory measure. We really didn't know where it would go, how it would grow and be integrated, and still haven't fully explored all the possible uses. --Oldfrog 20:39, 27 January 2007 (EST)

Explore all you want, just because you didn't plan anything, doesn't mean something you would or should have planned against doesn't happen. I'm telling you what I see, you can choose to accept it or not, just resist the overwhelming temptation to close ranks and jump all over me because I say some negative things. Heck there are already at least two remarks (not from you) attributing negative things that I didn't even say! --LU 12:47, 29 January 2007 (EST)

Likewise, comments removed and placed here --Cudni 15:44, 28 January 2007 (EST)

I'm perplexed, where can others and myself see where CastleCops made it clear that non professional, how is that established because we all can claim that we are, or non staff members are not welcomed to participate in creating the content? You are a member and you are in your own words doing the bulk of the work, were you told by CastleCops not to do that or were you welcomed and encouraged in your endeavour? Did you try to spread the word about Wiki yourself by posting in forums and or asking people who cooperate here with you to help spread the word?--Cudni 13:00, 28 January 2007 (EST)

I've never being one for following the rules. Also I'm apparently an AI expert (or at the very least someone with CS background) playing dumb according to some speculations, so obviously the rule against non-professionals doesn't apply to me. :) . BTW I didn't say that Castlecops staff say "You can't edit in wikis", though obviously and rightly they are much more suspious of my edits then say one by Younguns (no doubt this will bring a storm of protest heh). After all as I pointed out castlecops has No policy at all for the wiki, so whatever I'm referring to cannot be an explcit policy, but rather so kind of unspoken agreement or perception. Yes I'm referring more to perceptions. In the absence of any explict policy, the default assumption would be to assume that the Wiki ran under the same policy as the forum.

Also Why did I come to this perception? I did try to spread the word privately, like when someone complained that a certain article was wrong, or bad, or unclear or whatever, or when I spotted someone who was easily more qualified and knowledgable than me and I asked them to edit or go change it, and the response is inevitably, "I'm not qualified to do it" or "Castlecops experts wrote it so ..... Also publicly looking at the way people refer to articles in the wiki, it is very clear to me that they are investing in it, a higher level of trust then say in Wikipedia. Just studying the links to wiki articles, inevitably, the words "expert" or "professionals" will be mentioned or someone alluding to Castlecops reputation as an antispyware site (see my user page for an example), or in the latest case, someone read my user page which I stated I wasn't expert and yet happily endorsed it, with a gigantic logo of castlecops as if to say it's Castlecops it's safe! The irony is of course the screenshot, clearly showed that everything else was in beta except MRP! I notice the (limited) exception to the rule if there is one seems to be the roll your own suite page which did attract a few none-staff/professional members to add software links.

It makes sense if you think about it. After all that page just a semi-subjective listing of favourite security software and that is similar to what is already normally done in forums by none-staff members, so people are confident enough to edit. All this pretty much made me realise that even though there is no explict policy, it might certainly be perceived this way and it certainly explains what I have being experincing.

Another possible reason is that at the beginning only staff members contributed (though not much to the open wiki as pointed out). Even now, if you look at the contributors user page, pretty much everyone proudly displays half a dozen or more castlecops titles (why the heck would you need to display so many other than for vanity sake?) and/or MS MVPs, or at the very least others feel compelled to state some professional standings. In fact much of the recent activity seems to be dedicated towards re-establishing the Castlecops administration hierachy here with staff pages being created, probably there is a good reason but I'm not privy to all this secret stuff, and certainly the public doesn't benefit directly from this. That pretty much scares off normal people don't you think?

Possibly though normal forum members are just not interested and would normally not edit the wikipedia article on malware or antiviruses for example. Still this does not bode well for the open part of the wiki, since apprently staff members are not that interested either. So we have a chicken or egg problem since the only reason you do a wiki instead of a blog/website is that you get comments and you just concentrate on what aspect of writing that interests you. Like when I edit wikipedia, I can forget about spelling, grammar, whatever, someone will fix it for me. Over here even simple english errors have to be amended by the likes of TNT.

I'm glad that, as I thought, there isn't and indeed never was a policy of anything else but encouraging members to contribute in a positive manner irrespective of their title and to the best of their abilities. I don't think anything of experts who can't recognise, or are afraid of, and respond to a valid argument with questions or answers such as the ones your were confronted with and that helped shape negatively your perception of what CastleCops actually do. You have definitive and good ideas/suggestions of how Wiki can be helped shaped and those should be put forward so that they play a role in determining Wiki's future.--Cudni 13:28, 29 January 2007 (EST)

[edit] The pursuit of one's feelings

Why do you think that 'it all must naturally be your fault'? Lets pursue that for a moment. --Paul 18:23, 29 January 2007 (EST)

Well all those messages from you, stating that it's my abrasive attitude and that it excuses everything has something to do with it. No, I don't think it's my fault, it's just an excuse really for some of the staff to get back at me for not always "kowtowing" to them. It's not even a case of escalation due to misunderstandings among two speakers (to some extent maybe that was what happened with youngun), but just an outright bash from the get go. I left the door open in my first response for reconciliation (note I did not return any insults), just explained what I was doing, but all I got was personal attacks that had nothing to do with the matter at hand, rather than simply saying "oops, that was uncalled for". --LU 01:39, 30 January 2007 (EST)

So tell me, how are the words you used different from what folks wrote to you? What sets you apart from the rest? --Paul 09:04, 30 January 2007 (EST)

[edit] A thank you for honouring a request

Thanks for responding to my request to "tone down" your user page. I didn't think though that the whole page needed to be removed.

In any case, I trust you know that the intention is to get the beta template in place for all beta content pages. Thanks for introducing the idea and I do hope you'll stay on as a contributor ... even if you feel it necessary to occasionally prick any expert and/or professional bubbles. ;) --Ikester 00:57, 30 January 2007 (EST)