User talk:Nbinr1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome, Nbinr1!

--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 19:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What kind of help do you need? Please specify so that we can help you in the best way possible. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 20:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I am adding to my alma mater's entry Parkway North High School and I have found out that the district has posted its own secret passwords that give administrator-level access to anyone who uses them on a school computer. This is common knowledge around the school, however, I wonder if this is appropriate to add in the entry. I added it (the links to where you can find the password on their own site) and do not want it used with malicious intent, but I feel that the district needs to be pressured into being more computer security-conscious. The district has been notified multiple times by multiple people about the fact that these administrative passwords are common knowledge within the student body, and have been for some time, but they have not taken the proper steps to secure their network. In fact, they discipline students who use the passwords but don't change them. I think public attention to this problem would force the district to take action. What do you guys think? There are more "security holes" -- for example, the "server room" pictured on the entry is unlocked at most times and other times is accessible by climbing over a short partition: would this be the place to mention that? I wouldn't want to inspire any hackers. Nbinr1

Please take a look at what wikipedia is not, wikipedia is not a soapbox. I'm sure your motivation is fine, but it is not what wikipedia is for we are an encyclopedia. --pgk 20:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

To add further to this, it would also violate neutral point of view, no original research and it would seem unlikely you can find multiple third party reliable sources --pgk 20:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply. However, I'm not sure how simply linking to the school district's own web site would be a violation of neutral POV (I'm not saying 'Their security sucks' in the article, I'm just pointing out links to information straight from the district itself), no original research (I did do a search for this information), and a third-party that could verify this would be any student to the school (that is, they could verify the passwords work). This is kind of like Diebold posting their own trade secrets about their e-voting systems on their web site and then complaining about trade secrets being violated when people retrieved the files (see Hacking Democracy). If you do not protect passwords, they become de facto common knowledge, and I believe including issues regarding technology--though controversial to those the information paints in a bad light (in this case, the district, which has a vested interest to keep this information secret)--is something worthy and encyclopedic, in that it "covers the controversy." I don't have an axe to grind with the place, but these issues are, I believe, relevant. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you... Thanks again. Nbinr1 20:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Your intent as you stated is to pressure them into doing something, that is not neutral. Also as per not a soapbox. Read what counts as original research, and other students do not count as reliable sources --pgk 21:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I may be wrong, and yes, this is my first article, but I don't believe I'm on a soapbox. See the article (Parkway North High School), go to the "security holes" section and judge for yourself. As for original research, you directed me to read "Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about." The links I am giving are messages written by Department of Technology employees, which would be considered primary sources, and posted on their officlal web site (take a look at the footnotes and trace the domain if you insist). I don't see a problem there. My "true intent" (which is known only to me anyway) for providing information is moot as long as the information is accurate (e.g., the listed passwords do work, the messages are indeed from Parkway technology employees, they are on a primary source government web site). What is the problem here again? You don't want me to point out information that some would say portrays the district sysops as incompetent, even if that is the reality? Please, I'd like to get a second opinion on this from another Wikipedian/s. I want to know more. The main part is, I believe that since technology is such an integral part of the curriculum, any breaches of security should be described in an encyclopedic entry since people would want to know about it and it is part of our school. I mean, whenever the government has a breach of security, red flags go up everywhere and they send out a press release (and Wikipedia covers it). Here I'm getting the sense things are being swept under the rug. With utmost respect, Nbinr1 21:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave the helpme in place so someone else will also look. Your "true intent" is of course for you to know, your stated "but I feel that the district needs to be pressured into being more computer security-conscious" which seems to define an soapbox intent to me. From WP:NOR "... most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources...". "An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.". The cites you make along with "Both the user ID and password combination will give anyone administrative access" fail (1) of that, I cannot verify that those are indeed the admin passwords etc. Your second point about the intranet being accesible externally, is there anywhere that a claim is made that it is not meant to be? or is that a failure of (2). Your final point on wikipedia covering oter stuff, the difference here is that those are things uncovered and widely publicised, wikipedia doesn't research and break the story. This is the issue of a lack of secondary sources. --pgk 22:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll also note that the links for the admin accounts you give are a couple of years old I certainly cannot verify that (a) they are currently accurate or (b) that if they ever were valid that they were published to the broad audience they are now. These fail as suitable sources for claims you are making. --pgk 22:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Pgk, you do bring up a good point about secondary sources. And I do appreciate your mentoring and patience from a newbie still getting into Wikipedia's community. I assume I can include the primary links in the article only as long as I only describe them, and not analyze them--and let the reader decide for him/herself if they are genuine. But how would I word that? Something along the lines of "These four links are BBS messages by district employees (only employees can post to this BBS) that contain allegedly-valid user IDs and passwords, however, their veracity is unknown and unverifiable as of this date to those outside of the building. The alleged identifiers may give administrative-level access because, to complete the tasks described step-by-step in the messages, administrative-level access is, by design of the OS XServe system, most definitely necessary." Am I on the right track or is that still too big a leap? Sincerely, Nbinr1 23:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Still too big a leap to me. Firstly you would again be making an unverifiable assertions that the messages were posted by district employees and that only employees can post to the BBS. That again is original research there is no verification of that. Words like allegedly are pretty weasley. Your other statements concerning OSX requiring admin level etc. would also fail "easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge". You might also like to consider WP:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone. The other core policy I haven't pointed you at is verifiability though of course it is intertwined in the others "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"... --pgk 23:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Would there be any grounds for inclusion of the links, in your opinion? They may not be verifiable to the public at large, but for a small community of 2,000 students and faculty they very much are verifiable, as shown by their almost daily use. Thanks again, Nbinr1 23:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is grounds for inclusion of the links, pgk has already mention verifiability, and 2,000 students and faculty just doesn't cut it.--Commander Keane 23:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nortel Meridian Image

You uploaded a picture [1] of a Meridian 1. Do you know what model (option 11/51/61/81) it is, so I can update its caption here? Many thanks, Davidprior 09:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't. I don't have access to the place where I took that picture anymore, and I did not work there. Nbinr1 14:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)