User talk:Deckdeck21/Australian Security Intelligence Organisation website hacked, blueprints stolen

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Review of revision 1910353 [Not ready][edit]

Exclusive interviews[edit]

Hi. The interviews I conducted for this story have been recorded. Do you require the original .mov files?

Review of revision 1910487 [Not ready][edit]

  • Headlines should avoid initialisms unless the initialism is more recognized that the full name (such as NASA) or the expansion would be unworkably long. It's also a problem when the headline leaves the reader having no idea what the topic of the article is — ASIO isn't something most readers would recognize, and the current headline leaves the reader not knowing what part of the world or what kind of organization it is. --Pi zero (talk) 11:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Pi Zero. Question:[edit]

It wasn't clear how to find the article talk page where I need to start my Reporters comments section. Do you mean for me put my notes WITHIN the original tag? E.g.

Wikinews
This article features first-hand journalism by Wikinews members. See the collaboration page for more details.
Wikinews
This article features first-hand journalism by Wikinews members. See the collaboration page for more details.

 ??

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deckdeck21 (talkcontribs) 11:49, 28 May 2013

Looks like you've figured it out. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Repoter's notes[edit]

I personally interviewed two of the sources in this article. The interview with Asher Wolfe was conducted on Wednesday April 1, 2013. The interview with Katina Michael was conducted Thursday April 2, 2013. My original use for their comments was in a feature style radio piece which I self-published online. As the furor over the Four Corners episode erupted on twitter the night before this piece was published, these two interviews sprung to my mind. Their comments and views are still relevant to this breaking story. They provide substance and perspective to this fresh dispute.

Julia Gillard's comments are what makes this news. And so is the response from the Chinese government, reported by ABC's Stephen McDonell. But it is an issue dealt with much more regularly by Katina Michael and Asher Wolfe who can both claim a level of expertise.

Katina Michael is a researcher at the University of Wollongong. She is highly respected in the information and securities industry. Her work is currently focused on boundary between the 'real world' and cyber-space. I met Michael on campus at UOW to interview her. I made sure to fact check claims made in the quotes that I used. I quote Michael in the article as saying: "The word hacker, for instance, does not appear in the European Union's cyber crime convention, which Australia acceded to in January this year." You can verify this information here: http://www.itnews.com.au/News/335341,australia-accedes-to-eu-cybercrime-convention.aspx

These are the questions I prepared to asked Michael:

HACKING Who are hackers? How real are our insecurities? (Cyber and physical). Should we fear what hackers are capable of? When does hacking become bad? Do you think people are vigilant enough? Is there any more threat to your privacy than putting videos on Facebook? Who informs government policy on cybercrime? Asher Wolfe, a news collator and activist in Melbourne told me that the perception of hackers that’s played out in the media is often informed by the information and securities industry. She says this is problematic because of the money they stand to gain from making it a big issue. What do you say to that? Are the national security technologies in place

Here is the raw audio file of our interview. (NB: At one point I tell her that the conversation is off the record, but she agreed that it didn't need to be.)

https://soundcloud.com/keiran-deck/katina-michael-interview

Asher Wolfe is a media curator for blottr.com. She is very active in the cyber security world with much to say on the issue (visit @AsherWolfe on twitter).

Here are the questions I planned to ask.

How do you describe yourself? What is hacking and who are hackers? Why should we care that they exist? And is their work meaningful to our lives? Does the term hacker need better definition? Hacker is simultaneously used to describe someone who is performing a ‘keeping the bastards honest’ role, and someone who can tear down critical infrastructure. What about another term: cyber. Do you think that needs to be better used? Is it as simple as black and white hats? Is there a good side and a bad side? Does the public perception of hacker culture line-up with the culture that you have experienced? (that there is a good vs. bad rhetoric) Why do hackers choose hacking? When does hacking become bad? Does what hackers do in their fight against governments and corporations mean much for the average member of the public? Should we take a side? People who are skilled with code – hackers – are often referred to as juveniles playing with things that only the adults can control responsibly. Are young people really the leaders in the technologies?

Here is the raw audio file: https://soundcloud.com/keiran-deck/asher-wolfe-interview.

Review of revision 1911059 [Passed][edit]

Renamed and other review concerns[edit]

I renamed the article. If you ware from outside Australia, you have ZERO idea what ASIO is. (Quick: Tell me what NIS stands for. If it was not National Intelligent Service and refer to South Africa, then you see the problem.) The title clearly did not explain the topic. I am ... concerned that this issue came up repeatedly in reviews that did not pass, that this issue was never addressed by reporter, and that the reviewer passed it despite it not having been addressed. I would like a discussion on why the reviewer chose to publish under that title anyway. --LauraHale (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, I am very concerned that the article was published with the idea that it STILL needs a bit of a copyedit. The copyedit should be done before the article is published, not after. --LauraHale (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I removed the original reporting tag, because I cannot really see the evidence of this on the talk page. There was previous reviewer concerns about this, and the reviewer's review made no mention of these at all. --LauraHale (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
That last seems a misunderstanding; there's a section of reporter's notes, above. --Pi zero (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
My bad. And I misread the tense. Today is not a good day. :( I apologize for not taking the time to more carefully read the review (and misreinterpretting the tense) and the journalist notes where the OR was more clearly shown down the page.) I still have major issues with the title remaining unchanged before publishing. --LauraHale (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
One might say the title was a victim of the amount of concentration needed to verify the OR. (side note: The same mistake was corrected prepublish in the story proper) One had to listen through almost an hour of audio. In hind sight, it (the title) probably should've been the first thing picked up and fixed.
As to the copy editing etc. there was a mass of copy editing by myself prior to the article being published. Maybe I missed something IDK. Some more specifics would be nice in the critique. --RockerballAustralia c 04:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Unpublish[edit]

  • This article was published with a lede sentence that was ungrammatical and did not even make sense.
  • An earlier version of the article had a sentence there that made sense, but this was the result of a change that appears to have been in appropriate for the reviewer because it changed the focus of the article.
  • The fact that this very extensive edit resulted in an irreparably corrupted sentence is also an illustration of why large changes should be assumed to disqualify the editing user from review — another user reading the text would presumably have caught the error. So that's two reasons why the user should not have published after making such a change.
  • I took the extreme action of unpublishing the article; iirc this is only the third time since my arrival at Wikinews that I have taken such a measure (and I haven't seen it happen very many more times than that). If this article does not get published, it will be necessary to provide a stub in its place, so as not to create a memory hole.

--Pi zero (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)