Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer Security

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Computer Security and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcut

WT:COMPSEC

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4: 3 months

Computer Security: Computing

This page 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 page is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:

Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. 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.

Merge proposal at Norton 360

I have created a merge proposal at Norton 360 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Tule-hog (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User status discussion

This is a separate post to discuss the merits of the User status list.

From what I understand, at least 10 active users qualify as an active WikiProject. There are almost 80 users listed, but with very little activity. If that threshold is not met within a reasonable time frame (say, by the end of 2024?), it might be time to either mark the project as inactive or transform it into a taskforce of WikiProject Computing.

Critical to my reasoning is that a change would make coordinating the few editors interested in CompSec easier, not more convoluted - if in your experience, these kinds of transitions tend to garble rather than help, I would appreciate recommendations on whether or not to continue with this process. I am thinking that a taskforce of Computing makes the most sense, but I also imagine that could just add extra administrative work in the long run if the taskforce ever grows back out into a full project.

Additionally, I'm not sure if I should do more to draw attention to the list. I put a short {{notice}} on the main page; I wouldn't want to spam users, but also understandably few participants are actively monitoring the talk page where the actual discussion is. Tule-hog (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your roll call is a bit unusual and so I wasn't immediately clear what was going on. I've trimmed participant lists on projects in the past but just based on observed inactivity on Wikipedia as a whole e.g. mark them inactive if they've done no editing in the past year.

I already see WP:COMPSEC as dependent in some form or WP:COMP. Whether it is standalone, a child project or a task group doesn't seem to be of much practical consequence.

It is difficult to gauge the vitality of a project or task group or whatever. I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by marking it inactive but I will oppose that because I am still active. It's fine if you want to mark it semi-active but, as with your roll call and project hierarchy proposal, I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by changing designation. ~Kvng (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I gathered on WP:TF, the only possible benefits to a taskforce conversion would be:

1. {{WikiProject Computer Security}} is made a parameter of WP:COMP's banner, which results in

2. Automatically merged article alerts in the main project, so more editors notified

However, given WP:COMPSEC's considerable work on 'political'/non-computing-centric articles that might be opposed by WP:COMP in the first place.

The only reasoning to mark inactive would be to centralize work into WP:COMP; on further thought the taskforce conversion is the only option that makes sense, if any at all.

I will strike the status list and trim the list based on activity (on Wikimedia as a whole) in the last 2 years if you/any other participants could confirm that is justified. Tule-hog (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We already have |security= and |security-importance= on {{WikiProject Computing}}. At this point, security seems to be both a task force and a standalone project. You're welcome to clean this up if we have consensus on how to do so. I would support closing down the standalone project in favor of the task force because I can't justify having both and I think you're right, we'll have more participation on security topics as a task force.

WP:COMP must get alerts from {{WikiProject Computing}} articles marked with |security=yes. I'm not sure if WP:COMP gets alerts from {{WikiProject Computer Security}}.

2 years of Wikipedia inactivity is more generous than necessary IMO but I won't quibble about it. ~Kvng (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we may have the same task force/standalone project duality with WP:COMPSCI and WP:SOFTWARE so we probably should discuss this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing before proceeding. ~Kvng (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles tagged with WP:CSEC are already tagged with WP:COMPSCI or WP:ELECTRONICS depending on the topic area, I don't really see the benefit of doing the switcharoo in the first place. Also, I concur with Kvng that I don't see the project as inactive, it is definitely lower in activity, but that's probably expected in this kind of a nicher topic area from time to time. Sohom (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, you joined this wikiproject on September 5th only to immediately request it being shut down? (Actually, you joined about 14 minutes AFTER asking it to be shut down; even more interesting.) Why don't you participate a bit first and try to fix this perceived inactivity, before deciding to recommend such huge changes?

Note: I'm not against making this a task-force, but I'm surprised it's always apparent newcomers proposing such things. --DanielPharos (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Participation is not measured by duration since signing the list; see my contributions. This was an inquiry to the community on how best to centralize the work after observing relative inactivity for around 5 months, not an attempt to shutter any editor organization around CompSec. Tule-hog (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If signing up to the project is not a measure of participation, then why do you treat the user list as a gauge for the activity of the project?

Anyway, I apologize if I'm coming across as abrasive. It just that I've seen proposals like this before (for example, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer Security/Archive 4#WikiProject restructuring), and back then it was build on handwavy argumentation, providing no clear support for the alleged benefit(s). I'm just trying to vet out if that's the case now too. --DanielPharos (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]