Talk:Brain dump

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

I tried to fix the introduction here, but this article needs a lot of work. For example, I still can't figure out what it's about. Can someone check out what's going on, or maybe introduce the subject better for more context?--Instant Classic 22:50, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article is about the mechanics of software programming skill transfer, which in jargon is called brain dump. More specifically 3 existing approaches to knowledge capture are outlined Francois Genolini 09:38, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Legality[edit]

The writer gets a little nutty about what is and is not illegal. Taking a test to memorize the questions is probably not illegal in most places, but redistributing that information probably is. Then there is the difference between civil and criminal violations. 24.155.142.170 23:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Using the information to distribute and reproduce in Microsoft's viewpoint violates their Non-disclosure agreement and a lawsuit has been filed for Copyright Infringement. Therefore, it may not be illegal to memorize what you see, but it would - in this case - be illegal to distribute it, in whole or in part, in anyway. Mnemnoch 02:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This whole article reads like an advertisement for one particular world view. To my knowledge, no party or organisation has been sucessfully prosecuted for breach of copywrite. If claims of illegallity are made they need to be supported by references.Phreestyle (talk) 06:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Confusion[edit]

This article confuses the notion of 'brain dump' with the notion of a 'dump' in general. A dump is a mass transfer of information in an unstructured way. The original usage (I believe) was a 'core dump', when the contents of working memory (nowadays that would be RAM) is transfered to disk, or printed out (yes, amazing as it may seem!), for debugging or other analysis. This gives a snapshot of the system's state without depending on the integrity of the system (which may have been corrupted), unlike a structured printout of its data structures. The core dump long predates the Unix operating system. On the other hand, the data is unstructured and generally cannot be reloaded into a program for further processing. The term 'brain dump' is a humorous extension of the notion of 'core dump'. The idea is that you are telling someone everything you know about a subject. This typically happens when a member of a project leaves, and the others on the team want to know everything he/she knows about the project, without expecting him/her to formally document it (which would take too long)... or when a new member joins, and asks an experienced member to tell him/her everything he/she knows.

I have not come across the term 'brain dump' being used seriously in knowledge engineering, artificial intelligence, or neural network research -- I would like to see some references.

By the way, I have worked with computers since 1967.--Macrakis 20:42, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I came across the word 'brain dump' in the meaning of some knowledge base where every user can upload documents in a specified topic. Generally these are some dinamic websites for uploading exams, class materials, own workouts for preparing for exams, books of tutors maintained by students of universities helping each other. Anybody about this? Ping-Win 18:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to attempt a massive edit of this article to bring it in line with the "Humorous variant" described in Core dump. Here goes.... Alksub 18:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I've heard the term used many times ... usually when an engineer was leaving the company or taking a long vacation, and someone else would be taking over his workload. -- ProveIt (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I was very familiar with the term during the 1970's and 1980's. I agree that the term 'brain dump' is a sarcastic take of 'core dump'. It was common among programmers who were familiar with analyzing massive core dumps from 'big iron' systems. As a contract programmer / software engineer, I was often accused of it, especially when the contract came to an and I only had a couple of days to pass on a years worth of experience to another engineer in a day or two. It was usually phrased 'Whoa - Brain Dump!..' Oldfarm
Current vernacular would suggest that a 'brain dump' is something that is a mass relay of information by memorization or possibly other electronic methods to be distributed and used for IT Certification Exams. Since for sale on the Internet, I do not agree that they are legal, and citings are made in the braindumps as to where the information has been legally disputed. For that matter, a number of illegitimate employees of companies have obtained positions through simply cheating on these exams to prove their credibility. I do not agree with the fact that a massive edit was done to relate it to a "humorous variant" of 'core dumps' as it is a serious moral issue to cheat on any sort of exam, be it monitored or not. Mnemnoch 02:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the IT certification meaning is common, but the more general meaning still exists. Don't confuse the general meaning of "brain dump" with one particular meaning, please. --Macrakis 04:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Cite references. Until then the legality of "brain dumps" is important based upon the trial of Microsoft v. Testking. In its current vernacular, simply do a search on Google or your favorite search engine for "brain dump" and see how many sites actually relate to the minor "humorous variant" that may have once been referred to as a 'core dump'. Regardless, examinees who take IT exams are not allowed to write out an exam as the proctor, if legitimate, would notice this behavior and it would be nearly impossible to write out an entire, randomized, testset of well over 200 questions to give one an advantage. Therefore, it would be entirely reliant upon the examinee's ability to memorize using the software or replications provided illegitimately by these companies.Mnemnoch 15:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Proposal. Since there seems to be a problem mixing the current vernacular with the vernacular of yore, I propose that the phrase "brain dump" be used for its original meaning and the word "braindump" be used to reference the more modern, less legal version of the definition. In other words, lets remove the redirect and separate the terms. I understand that I have been in here only a handful of times, and this is the first documented contribution I have made, but I have not only made contributions in the past, I am making considerable contributions to the IT Community in the way of having braindumps removed from the internet. Mnemnoch and I have been working together on a less ambiguous, more comprehensive, definition the word (braindump), which we are hoping will allow us a means of better educating the IT Industry to the dangers of using them and hiring people that have used them. Please refer to www.certguard.com/braindumps.asp to see what we have done. CertGuard 19:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
We need to document all active meanings. As for "educating the IT Industry to the dangers of using" braindumps (in your sense), Wikipedia is not a place for campaigns like this. It is an encyclopedia. --Macrakis 01:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Mr Macrakis, this is not a campaign of any kind - it is an informative article separating core dump and the "humor" that some of you seem to find behind it, and the current vernacular of its usage. CertGuard and myself have both asked you to cite references, have you done so yet? Another request I have of you before you decide that its within this articles' best interest to remove any editing to it is to take into consideration a search on Google for "Brain dump" and see what you come up with. I'm sure that will suit the measures to say that you have failed to do adequate research into the importance of the IT side of this article. Mnemnoch 01:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Sir, I assure you this is no 'campaign'. Braindumps are real and they are ruining the IT Industry. IT Certifications across the world have been devastated by the mass production of braindumps. Braindumps are not just simple memory dumps from a kid with a camera. The braindumps I am referring to are mass produced by corporations that have illegally acquired them via unknown sources. If I have misinterpreted the definition of encyclopedia, I apologize, but I was under the impression this was a place to "reference work containing information on every branch of knowledge". As for educating the IT Industry, I apologize, I will take care of that on my own site. The information you have been removing, however, is information that is pertinent to the current definition of the word 'braindumps' and I still feel it is necessary to separate the terms as to show there is no relation between the two. -- CertGuard 21:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Your language (and for that matter your user name) certainly makes it sound like a "campaign". I don't question whether cheating on IT certifications is bad thing. But you can't just inject editorializing into articles (see WP:NOR). If you have good solid sources, let's see them. Also, given your name, it appears you are affiliated with Certguard.com, which has been added as an external reference. Our policies (see WP:COI) prohibit this sort of thing. --Macrakis 02:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Please read this quote from the NOR: Citing oneself

This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, then s/he may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest.

CertGuard has done original research. You have not. Mnemnoch 02:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The insertion of 'original research' is contrary to WP terms of service. I, too, believe this article reads like a campaign by a couple of evangelists. The tone is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry.

I am going to remove the links to the CertGaurd website. Phreestyle (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Testking[edit]

Does this need to be in the article itself? I can see how the company has created a name for itself, but it may not warrant an entire article. Mnemnoch (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Chaos[edit]

I tried reading this artcile it is utter chaos and i cannot follow it at all it needs a complete overhaul if you expect people to understand it. I right now think it looks like someone was making it up as they went--03:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Links[edit]

Mnemnoch please stop linking to your own site. This constitutes link spam and is in contravention of the spirit of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.137.49 (talk) 07:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not spam, this is referencing a verifiable source. The site is not a practice test provider nor are we trying to spam anything. We have a very high spam policy at CertGuard and the definition is referenced. 74.167.138.172 (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

removed link[edit]

I removed the link to TestKing because if TestKing infringes copyright then linking to it would violate Wikipedia policy. By the way, it would be nice if one could provide pointers on how to tell whether a test-preparation website violates nondisclosure policies (that is, whether it posts unauthorized copies of real exam material) or not. Bwrs (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)