Talk:Shaw Communications

Wikilinks

This page has way too many Wikilinks in my opinion. It is starting to look a bit messy.

Removed extraneous templates

This article has six different templates at the top, 5 of which I removed. There were three different templates indicating that citations were required; I left one, but didn't think 3 were necessary. There was a template indicating NPOV, one indicating original research, and another indicating weasel words, none of which I could find in the article or find any reference to on the talk page. If those who added these templates can explain why they were there, please re-add them. But having them there without any explanation is confusing and clutters the page. —P^urpleRA^IN 14:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Compromised Network" paragraph

After reading the article you cited, I have again removed the paragraph from the Shaw Communications article. The article does not meet the criteria mentioned in Wikipedia:Verifiability, specifically here. The article is self-published, and so poorly written as to make it difficult to understand what claims are in fact being made. Based on this article, it is certainly inaccurate to title the section "Compromised Network." I attempted to rewrite the paragraph based on information contained in the article, removing words like "notorious" and "should" and ended up with very little. If there is in fact a problem with botnets on Shaw's network, this should be reported, but in a more neutral way. I haven't yet seen anything to convince me that this is the case, however. —P^urpleRA^IN 22:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link to the article cited, in case anyone in interested: [1] —P^urpleRA^IN 22:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that you are wrong in claiming that the article mentioned does not meet the Wikipedia:Verifiability and I have reinstated the paragraph.

The article you describe as self published and so poorly written is academic research by a P.H.D candidate out of Northwestern University. The author has presented papers at international and local conferences of the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers). The citation mentioned is also the second chapter of the book: Botnet Detection: Countering the Largest Security Threat Edited by Wenke Lee, Edited by David Dagon, Edited by Cliff Wang

Format: Hardback, 300 pages, Approx. p. 20 illus. Collection: Advances in Information Security v. 36 Pub. Date: 30-Nov-2007 Publisher: Springer-Verlag New York Inc. ISBN-10: 0387687661 ISBN-13: 9780387687667

"Description (of the book)

Botnets have become the platform of choice for launching attacks and committing fraud on the Internet. A better understanding of Botnets will help to coordinate and develop new technologies to counter this serious security threat. Botnet Detection: Countering the Largest Security Threat, a contributed volume by world-class leaders in this field, is based on the June 2006 ARO workshop on Botnets. This edited volume represents the state-of-the-art in research on Botnets. It provides botnet detection techniques and response strategies, as well as the latest results from leading academic, industry and government researchers. Botnet Detection: Countering the Largest Security Threat is intended for researchers and practitioners in industry. This book is also appropriate as a secondary text or reference book for advanced-level students in computer science."

I don't want to be insulting but I think that you do not have enough education to properly understand the issue and act as an editor in regards to this matter. I do appreciate you challenging me to improve my contribution and I will work on addressing some of your concerns. A botnet is a compromised network, and verifiable data shows that Shaw Communications is a world leader in generating botnet traffic.(see the chart on pg. 11)This data is consistent with raw data reported by internet security organizations.

The use of "should" & "notorious" My use of these words do not reflect a bias against Shaw Communications. The word should is used in Wikipedia article Morchella (Morel)in regards to precautions. Requesting a citation on the use "should" would not be out of order. Please be patient and I will provide one. In the mean time it is a logical precaution and you should let it stand. Many visitors to the Shaw Communications wiki page will be experiencing frequent attacks from this address range and stating a reasonable precaution is not out of order. The word notorious means: generally known and talked of, or, widely and unfavorably known. Do a google search on "Shaw Communications internet attack" and you will see the use of "notorious" is reasonable. I will however work on rewriting this section stating the same information in a verifiable and more neutral tone. You do not have to rewrite this for me, simply state your concerns and I will try to address them. I am the only contributor to this page to present referenced information my work should not be deleted simply because you do not understand the topic.