Suggestion: Subject Matter Editors

Jeffrey Walton

Hi All, I know this has come up in the context of non-English speaking contributors in an effort to improve article quality. I'm all for it. I submit that the non-English speaking author has a better command of English than I have of his native tongue. So I am humbled by my own ignorance... However, Subject Matter is a different story. I have a good understanding in some arenas. This knowledge extends sufficiently so that I feel I can provide feedbck and advice. One such area is Cryptography. I am appaled at some of the articles submitted on Cryptography. In the following, I am not singling out the authors. I am trying to make a succint point. The latest is TrueCrypt Explorer[^]. This library is using source code and presumably home grown ciphers from the notorius Tom St. Dennis of sci.crypt. Single handedly, he nearly ruined the usenet group with his arrogance and ignorance. I assume the author is not versed on Cryptography, and as such has fallen victim to TSD's 'Proof by Intimidation' of his cryptosystem. I am not aware of a Cryptanalytic effort by any reputable cryptographer on his work. Build your own cryptographically safe server/client protocol[^] is misleading because the author states something to the nature he is collecting 'true randomness', which is generally not possible in software. CTrueRandom - Getting True Random Numbers[^] claims it generates 'True Random Numbers'. I assume the author meant nondeterminsitic method, similar to the noise resisitor placed on the hardware based PRNG board of a RS6000. As a final example, I point you toward The Art & Science of Storing Passwords[

Hans Dietrich

This is an interesting idea, and I too have felt really aggravated by some of the poor articles posted here. I'm sure you know that historically, the CP editors take care of compliance with formatting, etc., but rarely get involved with content, unless there is a serious concern about plagiarism or something similar. I think that over time, the better articles are recognized and get better ratings. But SMEs are a whole new thing. I can see how putting content responsibility in the hands of a few anointed SMEs could lead to personality problems just like the one you described. A heavy-handed SME could cause huge damage to the site's collaborative spirit (I'm thinking of another Usenet newsgroup, which is dominated by an obnoxious person who was beaten off when he tried the same stuff here). I think I would rather risk a few bad articles than having to contend with a situation like that. Why don't you think that submitting (positive) comments on the article forums is the way to go?

Best wishes, Hans

[CodeProject Forum Guidelines] [How To Ask A Question] [My Articles]

Matthew Faithfull

Could the voting system be tweeked so that an article can be voted into oblivion by, for example, 'nill point' votes from 3 separate experts/moderators/SME? This might stop or at least slow down one bad egg from causing trouble but would allow a way to can really bad articles.

Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.

Gary R Wheeler

The CodeProject is an informal, open, collaborative site. The approach you describe would convert it to a formal, closed, scholastic one. Demi-gods would 'vet' articles based on their own notion of accuracy, usefulness, and appropriateness. I think the current approach with the article voting system and each article having its own forum is sufficient. If you think these articles are poor articles, vote them down. Post a message in their forum stating THIS ARTICLE IS CRAP and explain why. Write a response article.

Software Zen: delete this;

Fold With Us![^]

Cliff Hatch

Hans Apologies, I intended to vote your comment 5, but somehow managed to click 1 by mistake :-O - do you know any way to retract a vote? I didn't particularly want to participate in this debate, but I agree that the submission of positive comments is a good strategy. Best Regards Cliff

Hans Dietrich

Cliff Hatch wrote:

do you know any way to retract a vote?

I think you have to send an email to sean@codeproject.com. Thanks for telling me - now I won't think that Jeff is being mean. ;)

Best wishes, Hans

[CodeProject Forum Guidelines] [How To Ask A Question] [My Articles]

Jeffrey Walton

Hi Gary,

Gary R. Wheeler wrote:

The CodeProject is an informal, open, collaborative site. The approach you describe would convert it to a formal, closed, scholastic one. Demi-gods would 'vet' articles based on their own notion of accuracy, usefulness, and appropriateness.

The situation you describe (censorship) is worst than the current. I was not imagining an involuntary system. Perhaps middle ground is the solution: the Content Editor makes suggestions. If the author chooses, he or she can incorporate the suggestions.

Gary R. Wheeler wrote:

If you think these articles are poor articles, vote them down. Post a message in their forum stating THIS ARTICLE IS CRAP and explain why.

I try not to do this (I think it is very unprofessional). Again, I'd rather correct the problem at the source...

Gary R. Wheeler wrote:

Write a response article.

In my case, I did: A Survey of Pseudo Random Number Generators[^]. Also, I did try to solicit feedback from two PhD's. Neither would comment. In either case, I tried by going to someone who knows more then me. Humorously, the beginner article has only garnered a 4/5 rating Jeff

Jeffrey Walton

Hi Hans,

Hans Dietrich wrote:

I can see how putting content responsibility in the hands of a few anointed SMEs could lead to personality problems just like the one you described. A heavy-handed SME could cause huge damage to the site's collaborative spirit (I'm thinking of another Usenet newsgroup, which is dominated by an obnoxious person who was beaten off when he tried the same stuff here). I think I would rather risk a few bad articles than having to contend with a situation like that.

As Gary raised the same issue below, I was not not trying to create censorship. I was thinking more the way a Book Proofer work: Make suggestions and comment on tecnical correctness. The author can choose to incorporate. Jeff

Jeffrey Walton

Cliff Hatch wrote:

Apologies, I intended to vote your comment 5, but somehow managed to click 1 by mistake - do you know any way to retract a vote?

Perhaps Chris can help. I would post a questiion on the suggestion board (where this suggestion should have gone - I don't know how I managed to insert it into C++). Jeff