Talk:Risk-based testing

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

To the extent that this article relies on James Bach's and my work (the two cited articles). I think it misses the point.

There are really two different approaches to risk-based software testing.

One is about risks. Under this view, the risk-based tester imagines a way that the program can fail and designs tests to see if the program has that type of weakness. This is what I see as risk-based testing.
The other approach is about prioritizing resources. Given that we have figured out that some "area" or "feature" or something is risky, we throw more resources at it. This might be appropriate management, but I don't see much about testing here.

For more about my work on risk-based testing, see my course notes and videos at www.testingeducation.org/BBST/BBSTRisk-BasedTesting.html CemKaner (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assessing risks

A new section was added by an Indian technology student trying to obtain a mark. It was titled "assessing risks", however it does not explain how to asses risks at all. It discusses the need to asses risk in vague terms and is lacking the details required for an encyclopedic article. I tried to repair the section but it may be better to remove it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism?

The quality of the current sources suggest this is a WP:NEOLOGISM. Can we get better sources, or should we consider merging this into Software testing? --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to, feel free to find better sources. The area is a new one and so may qualify as a neologism, but it's also an important one and so doesn't make sense to merge into the larger article as it will change and evolve over time. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't have sources, it should go.

We've no independent sources, so there's no way to tell how to present it neutrally. Without such sources it's a WP:POVFORK, which means we just redirect to Software testing. --Ronz (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have sources to make it go, we have sources (in the article) that clearly define it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As no one is addressing my concerns, I'll go ahead and redirect after taking some time to see if there are any independent sources that might demonstrate it's worthy of mention at Software testing. --Ronz (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are your concerns valid? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a point, state it. You could start by either stating something that makes it clear you understand my concerns, or you make comments and ask questions to help the discussion along by seeking clarification. --Ronz (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My only point is that that you think the three sources provided are not sufficient and that the term is one designed to increase the use of the term. However it's not a valid point. Most software testing terms are used infrequently and many don't have multiple sources. I could point you to more but I don't want you gutting the work that's been done. In short, this is a term that is used in standard texts. I'm not sure why they're not sufficient.

More to the point, why have you selected this particular author to investigate? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll continue on. When you want participate in proper dispute resolution and consensus building, let me know. --Ronz (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. You have been the most uncooprartaive and obtuse editor I have had the opportunity to work with in the past six months. I have no idea what you're intentions are and even worse what your issue is. You certainly don't understand the subject and don't have any intention of trying to. Do what you need to do but be sure to comment properly here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I have no idea what you're intentions are and even worse what your issue is." And you're doing exactly what to remedy this? Try WP:DR, WP:CON, WP:CIVIL, and WP:TALK.--Ronz (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You come here making accusations about one RS used and then you make vague comments and then accuse me of being unconstructive, uncivil, etc. When you're ready to discuss the issue, feel free to do so. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've accused you of nothing. Let's stick to what's actually written rather than making things up. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you need to take a lesson in communication rather than pointing me to WP:DR, WP:CON, WP:CIVIL, and WP:TALK. Until you learn how to communicate, please stop editing here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have offended you so for mentioning relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the policies, its the context and your inability to communicate your actual concerns that are the problem. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge

I'm going ahead with a redirect/merge since there are no policy/guideline-based objections. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are so. You have no grounds to move it as there are two undisputed reliable sources present in the article and one contested source. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]