Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer security

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Maarten 1963 (talk | contribs) at 15:00, 29 August 2012 (Sweeping renovation of the page. This renovation solves the faulty display of a panel, cleans up the member list, removes all bombastic graphics and page inflations, and ends both fragmentation in subpages and acceptance of irresponsibility.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The WikiProject Computer Security is a project to help improve the articles in the Wikipedia that relate to computer security. The WikiProject is driven by its members and by editors who give it a helping hand. A WikiProject does not improve articles directly. It only deals with what exceeds the level of articles. The main activities are reviewing and quality assessment.

It is very honourable to be a member of this WikiProject, but that honour comes with responsibilities.[1] Becoming a member is not open to anyone, and remaining a member is not granted.

This WikiProject's page not only lists the pending requests for reviews, but also features a Performance section, so editors who seek a review can form a realistic idea about the usefulness of this WikiProject.

Members

The following list gives the members who could be considered active on the Wikipedia on 27 August 2012. Members must review at least one article per half a year.[2] Please remove members that do not live up to their responsibility.[3]

  1. Jacroe - 4 January 2006
  2. l337p4wn - 15 January 2006
  3. Needlenose - 29 January 2006
  4. Sephiroth storm (talk) - 25 January 2008
  5. SusanLesch (talk) 11 May 2008
  6. TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 04:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 07:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DavidBailey (talk) 10:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. h2g2bob (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. DanielPharos (talk) - 4 November 2008
  11. blurpeace (talk - contributions) 21:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Ched - 16 January 2009
  13. Glubbdrubb (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Jclemens (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Koman90 (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. PedroDaGr8 (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Irvick (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Paleking (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. naveenpf (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. HamburgerRadio (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. DPdH (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22.  Dspradau → talk  17:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Bachrach44 (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Rainer Hörbe (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Jamesrules90 (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. S*T*A*R*B*O*X (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. CoMePrAdZ (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 09:44, 23 July 2010
  29. Paulmnguyen (talk) 08:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Jeffrey Walton Noloader (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. bobrayner (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Vivekvc (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Neo139 (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Darmokandjalad (talk) -- 9 January 2012
  35. JC.Torpey (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Charles Kelley Stevenson 25 February 2012
  37. LoganLopez (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 20:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  39. MarkGoldfain (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  40. KawaiiDDoS (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  41. CamIce (talk) 12:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  42. SealAndBear (talk) 1:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  43. Scott Herbert (talk) 15th July 2012
  44. Theseus1776 16 July 2012
  45. Tomcheng09 Tomcheng09 (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Majeedullah Majeedullah (talk) 22:21, 08 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Sirkus (talk) 09:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Becoming a member

New members must have at least one year of experience as a regular writer/editor on the Wikipedia, must have a good command of English, and must care about clear, correct, and concise use of language. Basic knowledge about computers or computer security is not a condition.

Becoming a member has these advantages:

  • you will learn to take responsibility for a cause;
  • you will learn to express yourself calmly, decisively, and constructively, no matter how much pain that causes;
  • you will learn to express yourself in an authoritative and careful manner.

New members should deliver a review first.[4] Then they can sign up to the list of members.

Any computer security article can be reviewed to become or to remain a member. To find one, click the category WikiProject Computer Security at the bottom of this page and then go to the subcategory WikiProject Computer Security articles.

Questions

If you have a question for this WikiProject, then ask it on the Talk page, under a new header that indicates the subject. You may then add the header to the numbered list below this paragraph. Please sign the entry with your signature and also update the section Performance. Your entry will be removed when your question has been answered, and only when it has been answered within 3 weeks, the Performance section will be updated.

  1. Analogies between computer security and security in nature and society --Maarten 1963 (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review requests

If you want a review of an article, then add the title to the numbered list below, signed with your signature. You should then also update the section Performance. Your entry will be removed when the article has been reviewed, and only when it has been reviewed within 3 months, the Performance section will be updated.

The time that is needed to review an article depends on several factors. They include the length of the article and its overall state. Our objective is to deliver a review within 6 weeks.[5]

Your request will be reversed when:

  • the article does not relate to computer security; or
  • the article's history does not reveal that you improved the article to the best you reasonably could.[6]
  1. Cracking of wireless networks --Maarten 1963 (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plans

  1. Tag related articles.
  2. Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests).
  3. Review importance and quality of existing articles.
  4. Identify articles for creation in Category talk:People associated with computer security#To Do.
  5. Discuss the WholeSecurity and Norton AntiBot merger here.
  6. Clean up, source and expand the Gumblar article.
  7. Improve Wicked Rose. Article was PROD'ed and saved, looks like a possible good article.
  8. Re-assess the Rootkit article; this article could be pushed to B-class.

Performance

  • Number of questions listed in 2012: 1
  • Number of those questions answered within 3 weeks: 0
  • Number of reviews requested in 2012: 1
  • Number of those reviews completed within 3 months: 0
  • Number of plans listed in 2012: 8
  • Number of those plans completed: 0

Event log

The following list logs the proceedings of this WikiProject in 2012. The list items are numbered and signed. Starting and completing a review are events that must be logged. Non-members may also add events. Please do not log thoughts, log facts only.

  1. I renovated this page, thereby creating a standard for responsibility. --Maarten 1963 (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Report of 2012

A report of the activities of this WikiProject in 2012 is due here in January 2013. The report will be based on the Performance section and the Event log. Those sections will then record for 2013. The report will enable editors to judge the effectiveness of this WikiProject even when those sections have been cleaned up recently.

Reviewing

  • Anyone can review and rate articles, regardless of membership to this WikiProject.
  • Begin with adding the start of your review to the Event log.
  • Deliver your review comments on the Talk page of the article.
  • Carefully compare the article with the criteria in the tables below.
  • Edit the class and importance parameters within the WikiProject template. It is at the top of the Talk page.
  • Articles of class Stub, Start, C, and B can be promoted to a higher class.
  • Articles may only be promoted to class GA by registered users who have not contributed significantly to them. It is recommended to meet these requirements for promotion to lower classes as well.
  • Articles cannot be promoted to class A until they have been subjected to a peer review or a Good Article/Featured Article review.
  • Remove a request from the Review requests section when it has been complied with.
  • Update the Performance section when the review has been delivered within 3 months.
  • End with adding the completion of your review to the Event log.

WikiProject content quality grading scheme
Class Criteria Reader's experience Editing suggestions Example
 FA The article has attained featured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured article candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured article criteria:

A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and
    6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.
 Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. Storm botnet
Acid2
 FL The article has attained featured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured list candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured list criteria:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.
 Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. List of convicted computer criminals
 A The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been examined by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the A-Class criteria:
Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:Article development. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history).
 Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject would typically find nothing wanting. Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. WP:Peer review may help. Battle of Nam River
(as of June 2014)
 GA The article meets all of the good article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations.
More detailed criteria
A good article is:
  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;[7] and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication. Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing. Digital forensics
Microsoft Security Essentials
B The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
More detailed criteria
  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional.
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
  3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.
 Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. ITIL security management
Computer security
C The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup.
More detailed criteria
The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow.
 Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems. Antivirus software
Attack (computer)
Malware
Start An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources.
More detailed criteria
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following:
  • A useful picture or graphic
  • Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
  • A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
  • Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article
 Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more. Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Improve the grammar, spelling, and writing style; decrease the use of jargon. Ball
(as of September 2014)
Stub A very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria. Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant. Lineage (anthropology)
(as of December 2014)
List Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list or set index article, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area. There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader. Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized. List of computer viruses

In the above table, examples are from:

  • computer security articles (best choice);
  • computing articles (second best choice);
  • other articles (third best choice).
Importance Criteria Examples
Top Core articles which are a "must have" for Wikiproject Computer Security.
High-traffic articles which many people outside of computer security will already have a good knowledge of. 		Computer security, Computer insecurity, Firewall, Malware
High Most people interested in computer security will be familiar with the topic, and the article gives context to a number of other information security articles. Is mentioned by many books and academic papers, and discussed in detail in more than one. Port scanner, Bruce Schneier
Mid Known to many people interested in computer security, even if not in detail. Chaos Computer Club, Snort (software), Morris worm
Low More specific and specialized content known only to some people interested in computer security.
Most individuals, standards and software projects will be low importance unless they are well known or have high adoption. 		Michael Lynn, Datenschleuder, Certified Information Systems Security Professional

Tagging

Computer security articles

Articles that relate to computer security should be tagged with the project banner of WikiProject Computer Security:

WikiProject iconComputer security: Computing Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security 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.Computer securityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer securityTemplate:WikiProject Computer securityComputer security
???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.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
Things you can help WikiProject Computer security with:
Article alerts are available, updated by AAlertBot. More information...
  • Review importance and quality of existing articles
  • Identify categories related to Computer Security
  • Tag related articles
  • Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests)
  • Identify articles for improvement
  • Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
  • Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

To tag an article, add the following to the top of the Talk page of the article: 

{{WikiProject Computer Security|class=|importance=|computing-importance=}}

User page of members

Members can add the following tag to their User page.

WikiProject Computer security is a participant in WikiProject Computer Security.

To add the tag, insert the following to the your user page: 

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer Security/Userbox}}

Statistics of computer security articles

Computer security articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
GA 4 9 15 28
B 6 34 49 54 4 147
C 29 193 249 390 48 909
Start 8 132 292 844 250 1,526
Stub 17 74 428 197 716
List 8 9 22 3 42
Category 237 237
Disambig 7 7
File 8 8
Project 22 22
Redirect 14 17 49 210 290
Template 34 34
Other 1 42 43
Assessed 43 402 699 1,803 560 502 4,009
Total 43 402 699 1,803 560 502 4,009
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 16,064 Ω = 4.83


Annotations

  1. ^ According to the Guide of the WikiProject Council, reviewing articles is the most important activity of a WikiProject. This work can be tedious, however. To maintain group cohesion, every member must share in that work.
  2. ^ Members must show a minimum of commitment to this WikiProject to maintain group cohesion. This minimum has been set to one review per half a year, so members can also engage in writing/editing articles.
  3. ^ Members that do not live up to their responsibility can be identified by analysing the Event log. However, this shall not take effect until 1 January 2013.
  4. ^ It must be prevented that editors become a member of this WikiProject for displaying their username only.
  5. ^ For a review that took almost 6 weeks to complete, see Talk:Babbling#Review following nomination for class GA.
  6. ^ Editors must not ask this WikiProject to do what they can do on their own. When an editor has improved an article to his or her ability, a review will not only prepare further improvements, but will also teach the editor.
  7. ^ Prose at the Good Article level is not expected to be at a professional level like it is for Featured Articles. Minor grammatical or style issues that do not impact clarity are not prohibitive of GA status.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_security&oldid=509781318"