Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ Wikipedia in Blogland _ Wikiversity: When Breaching Experiments Attack
Posted by: WR Editorials
One of the biggest problems with Wikiland, at least for me, is that the funniest things that happen are often based on events and relationships that are too complex and involved to make for an easily-digestible humor piece. This is one of those times...
http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20100406/wikiversity-when-breaching-experiments-attack/
Posted by: Moulton
Very well-written, Somey. It's not an easy story to tell.
Posted by: RDH(Ghost In The Machine)
I second that emotion.
Well done oh Somey one!
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
I'm a little surprised to see Leigh Blackall getting stuck in that deletionism-inclusionism rut. Here's my comment on his comment.
As a general rule, in my experience, talking about del-ism vs. inc-ism is the mark of a very noobish observer of Wikiputian Politick. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on this, but I just can't see how.
The only real rule in Wikiputia is "What We Wanna" (WWW) — that applies to WWW Bee In vs. WWW Bee Out as much as anything else — and the only real determinant of the ever-e-phemeral outcome is Whose We Wins for the nonce.
— http://leighblackall.blogspot.com/2010/03/is-wikimedia-foundation-going-to-close.html#comment-5466250441660144068
Posted by: John Limey
"...and some believe that this minority can be persuaded by statistics" was this a backhanded slap at On Wikipedia? On the whole, an excellent piece though.
Posted by: thekohser
"...and some believe that this minority can be persuaded by statistics" was this a backhanded slap at On Wikipedia? On the whole, an excellent piece though.
I didn't read it as that. It was admonishing many of us who try to "prove" corrupt ethics with data.
Posted by: Moulton
Proving corruption of IDCab didn't require any statistics, as their corruption was massive and blatant. But I suppose a lot of casual observers remained skeptical until ArbCom slapped down FeloniousMonk for egregious abuse of power.
Posted by: Ottava
"This was deleted well over a month later, on Feb. 28, by User:Ottava Rima"
Wikimedia Ethics/Ethical Breaching Experiments/planning/howto
Created: (diff) 00:57, 1 March 2010 . . Privatemusings (Talk | contribs | block) (6,383 bytes) (add essay)
Deleted: 01:38, 1 March 2010 Ottava Rima (Talk | contribs | block) protected "Wikimedia Ethics/Ethical Breaching Experiments/planning/howto" [create=sysop] (indefinite) ‎ (hist | change)
That page was the "socking guide". It was never restored - I locked it when I deleted it (salted the earth).
Posted by: Moulton
MZMcBride has confirmed it was his socking guide, which is reproduced on Kelly Martin's site and on Encyclopedia Dramatica.
It doesn't tell how to conduct a breaching experiment. Rather it summarizes well-known ways to avoid being recognized as the sock of another user.
Posted by: Moulton
Leigh Blackall http://leighblackall.blogspot.com/2010/03/is-wikimedia-foundation-going-to-close.html#comment-3723380315800071961,
To which http://leighblackall.blogspot.com/2010/03/is-wikimedia-foundation-going-to-close.html#comment-128007542831150179,
As you know, there are discussion threads about it on Wikiversity, on Meta, on Wikipedia Review, and on a handful of personal blogs (including this one).
To the best of my knowledge, neither Jimbo Wales nor Sue Gardner have acknowledged or admitted that Jimbo was bamboozled by User:RTG.
In the http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Talk:Wikiversity_open_letter_project/WMF_Board_March_2010#sent.3F of Jimbo Wales on Wikiversity, he writes, "SJ is right that I didn't seek - nor should I have, nor will I ever in similar cases - a vote of the board before taking right action in defense of Wikiversity."
So it sounds to me that Jimbo still believes what he did was "right action in defense of Wikiversity."
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
Is Social Engineering a Legitimate Form of Penetration Testing?
And, we might ask, vice versa?
Penetration testing is an important means of assessing the strength of an organization's informaton security program. A security system may look good from the inside, but a test is the old true way to determine if it will hold up under pressure. These tests can range from simple port scans, to all out hacking attacks.
http://whitepapers.theregister.co.uk/paper/view/1501/nu-msia-whitepaper-2010.pdf