A better approach to security

[kurt AT va1der.ca]

The actions on Wikipedia absolutely do NOT represent an undue bias against CAcert.  I loved CAcert and what it was doing and when it started it was on track to BE LetsEncrypt.  But let's be real.  LetsEncrypt's Wikipedia article is safe because they provide a large percentage of the entire internet's certificates.  They issued their BILLIONTH certificate almost two years ago.  CAcert's article is not safe because it is an organization on the edge of utter irrelevancy.

The actual best way to get the CACert wikipedia article to a state where it will be safe from deletion is not to focus at all on what the organization does today, but on its historical aspects.  To make the argument that its historical standing makes its article relevant even if the organization today is below the notability threshold (and the question of whether it is or not is not invalid on its face).  And then moving forward from there, the way forward is to actually make CAcert relevant again.  I believe there is still a tiny window of opportunity to do that, but it is a slim one indeed.

I hate to be the one to give the unpleasant reality check, but it does CAcert no favours for it to entertain the notion that CACert is being unfairly dealt with.  The organization has been coasting for years.  The path of least resistance rarely takes you where you want to go and it never, ever runs up hill. 

Kurt Fitzner

On December 30, 2021 2:03:41 a.m. AST, Saubhagya Ram Joshi <saubhagya.joshi AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

 

Just my two cents:

 

Request for deletion on account of Notability seems absurd to me. Information on a non-for-profit organization should not be considered an advertisement at all.

 

I feel there is bias against CAcert because a similar page about LetsEncrypt is still safe. The user requesting deletion seems to be in good standing but if there us bias against us we have to report it.

Sau

On Dec 29, 2021, at 6:54 AM, Iang <iang AT cacert.org> wrote:

I suggest you concentrate on the web of trust aspects, because those are truly significant and "notable".  Leave aside the browser status discussion, which lacks notability :)

Also, you could cite this https://iang.org/papers/open_audit_lisa.html which was presented at LISA08, a major conference, and includes a pretty comprehensive picture of CAcert from an audit perspective up until 2008.

I had a quick look at the discussion but couldn't easily figure out what to do without researching wikipedia topics :(

iang

On 28/12/2021 23:31, Etienne Ruedin (CAcert Inc.) wrote:

Dear friends of CAcert

I am in need of your help!

Some time ago, someone deleted the article about CAcert from the English Wikipedia without any discussion. At my request it was restored, but it still needs some improvements. I cannot do that, as I am not familiar with the relevant regulations of the English-language Wikipedia and I am not fluent in English. Therefore my request: If you have an account at en.wikipedia.org, please have a look at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAcert.org. Read the article and pay attention to the following points while reading:

• The article relies too much on references to primary sources. (April 2012)
  
• This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. (September 2018)
• The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations. (December 2020)

Help add more sources (those not from CAcert directly).

Help to make the article more neutral.

Thank you very much.

As I write these lines, someone else has now (after two hours) proposed the article for deletion. The discussion about this takes place here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CAcert.org#CAcert.org

I know such discussions on Wikipedia are tedious and we could better invest our time at CAcert. If you can nevertheless contribute two or three bits to ensure that CAcert continues to be present in the English-language Wikipedia, you have my sincere thanks.

Best regards

Etienne