Talk:Gossip protocol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gossip protocol article.
Article policies

Most of this page is extracted from a longer article I wrote for a special edition of Operating Systems Review (an ACM publication that doesn't impose copyright restrictions). The longer article seemed a bit too detailed for a Wiki page, but it seemed to me that an encyclopedia treatment really should at least explain what a gossip protocol is, and isn't.

The references I included here are all cited in the longer article. Some are papers I co-authored but most are by other folks. I hope this isn't a violation of the POV/COI policies. I'm not trying to sell anything and if people want to edit the article to reduce any perceived bias, go for it!

Are illustrations needed? Ken Birman 12:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article in need of work--not okay (same note as on Virtual synchrony)

This article has numerous problems. First of all the editor who created the artice, User:Ken Birman has a conflict of interest (WP:COI) in that he is the developer of Virtual synchrony software, as he has stated. The article does not contain in-line citations. Its tone is inappropriate for an encyclopedia, a casual discussion in some areas, abruptly introduced technical language in others, sometimes both in one, so the article seems like a casual discussion among insiders or buyers in places, and unfocused run on descriptions of the process without any concept of the reader of Wikipedia articles ("Developers of distributed computer systems often need a way to replicate data for sharing between programs running on multiple machines, connected by a network. Virtual synchrony is one of three major technologies for solving this problem. The key idea is to create a form of distributed state machine associated with the replicated data item"). The examples are awkwardly introduced (probably due to COI), the prose needs thoroughly edited. The sections need cohesively structured, with internal order, for the reader of the article--WP:MOS. I have tagged these articles with requests for this clean-up in case there are interested Wikipedia editors who can improve these articles, in particular starting with structure and pose before moving on to technical accuracy. Ken Birman has made it clear he does not want me to edit the articles. KP Botany 18:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

On the OR: I included this tag because of the COI between the primary editor and the topic and the failure to include in-line citations, coupled with the disorganized structure of the article, that altogether make difficult the direct verification of information and original research. KP Botany 18:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What a surprise to see that KP Botany has a view on this article too... seems to me that someone has a bit of a power issue here. I'm struck by the fact that s/he didn't even bother to come up with comments about the gossip protocol article per-se but instead simply pulls in comments from a completely unrelated article (virtual synchrony) that KP Botany feels needs a rewrite.
Curiously, I don't have a conflict of interest on gossip protocols, since I neither invented the concept (Demers did so, decades ago), nor am even particularly fond of them. I do use them, of course, as does any developer of distributed protocols, but while the research community has gone wild over gossip, my own view is decidely more cautious. I think these are useful tools, when used appropriately. I don't understand the COI claim, at all, in this respect.
Unless, of course, KP Botany is simply on some form of rampage. Ken Birman 00:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
As Virtual synchrony is, according to you, "a completely unrelated article,"[1] please remove Virtual synchrony from the "See also" section of this article. Again, the WP:MOS will explain that "a completely unrelated article" should not be in the "See also" sections of Wikipedia articles:
"See also virtual synchrony, distributed state machines, Paxos, database transactions."[2] KP Botany 22:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Quick question for Ken Birman: How do you recouncil your 14 June 2007 statement

Some are papers I co-authored but most are by other folks. I hope this isn't a violation of the POV/COI policies

above with

Curiously, I don't have a conflict of interest on gossip protocols?

The first statement expresses at the least some doubts, while the second denies them completely, or at least denies a tangential concern or subset of the actually stated concern. --Calton | Talk 00:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Calton, I think that you are misunderstanding what I meant by "I hope". You read that as asking a question, but I actually meant it as a statement.
So, when I wrote "I hope this isn't a violation of the POV/COI policies" I meant this in the same sense as if I had written "It would be an absurd distortion of the commonly accepted interpretation of conflict of interest to assume that anyone who has any involvement with a technology has a conflict of interest in it."
For example, suppose that you happen to be an expert on botany, and create an admirable set of Wiki pages about species of plants that you happen to be very knowledgeable about, perhaps from your work -- let's imagine that you are curator of a collection and have decades of experience in the field. Would your article about such and such a plant be a violation of POV/COI? One would "hope" not, because the alternative would mean that Wiki pages could only be written by people lacking the needed expertise to actually do a good job on them. A Wikipedia in which only non-qualified people were permitted to author the original content of articles would be a strange "Big Brother" sort of world, with everything backwards and mediocrity promoted to a sort of religion.
Having said that, I believe that non-experts are fully qualified to edit and revise content once they understand it. Here I'm distinguishing the editing role - an expertise in its own right - from original authorship, particularly on topics with science or technology content. Thus: while a person like myself should write the FIRST draft of an article on virtual synchrony, or gossip, it would be highly appropriate for a skilled editor to rewrite it (perhaps quite aggressively) with the goal of improving exposition, bringing it closer to the Wiki style, etc. (It would not, however, be wise for that non-expert to rewrite in ways that change meaning or factual content, of course)
With respect to the reference to Virtual Synchrony, KP Botany's comment simply confirms that he or she isn't playing very fair. In the particular case, the article on gossip makes the point that the types of guarantees one can obtain with such protocols are probabilistic in nature, unlike the kinds of guarantees one can obtain using protocols in the class that includes virtual synchrony (also transactions and state machine replication). This is a case where we have two major but distinct ways of replicating data in a computer network, but they don't behave identically and are not interchangable. Obviously, such a statement needs a reference to the relevant Wiki page. However, KP Botany probably didn't read this carefully before posting a duplicate of his/her diatribe from the Virtual Synchrony page (where it made more sense, although I do think it was overheated).
As to the specifics: Computer protocols (algorithms for exchanging messages between computers on networks to accomplish some task) are an area in which, perhaps, 10,000 people have worked over the past decade. I'm one of them. Gossip protocols are a major subarea within the overall area, and there are probably 150 or 200 people who publish ideas that use this style of protocol. I'm one of them, but not a major player. I find them useful in some situations and use them, when appropriate. But most of my work is focused on problems for which they are not appropriate, and hence on the whole, my papers don't use this technique very often.
Does this represent a point of view? Well, sure, but not in the sense of the WP:POV policy as I read and understand it. Does it represent a conflict of interest? I think not because as the WP:COI policy is written, conflict of interest is expressed in terms of ulterior motives -- I write a page about Roibos Tea being great for your health, but don't disclose that I happen to be a major importer of Roibos Tea. Viewed in this sense, I have no COI on either of these pages, because I neither benefit by them existing in this form, nor am hurt if they don't exist at all. I do see them as a good addition to Wiki, but not because they somehow advance my interests (beyond the propagation of knowledge, that is).
WP:POV, similarly, is written to suggest that Wiki is not the place to go on diatribes of one form or another. A person who thinks that Single Malt Whiskey is far better than Scotch should not be using Wiki to advance that point of view. This is different from a factual statement. So, while both articles have factual content -- for example that Virtual Synchrony supports data replication at higher data rates than transactional systems -- this is supported by experimental information (including some that can be found in the cited literature), and would not be disputed by any knowledgeable editor. There is actually a simple technical reason for the speed improvement (an extra commit phase is needed in the transactional protocols) and one loses some guarantees (a point made in the article). A point of view is something "debatable" but these are not debatable points. Thus, I think the articles neither attempt to promote a point of view (except in the sense that these are ideas people should be able to learn about via Wiki), nor embody a conflict of interest (except in the sense that I believe the spread of knowledge in this area is good and it "advances" that specific interest if the Wiki pages live on).
But there is a different WP policy that applies here. If one reads the conflict resolution policies suggested on the pages for new users, the kind of behavior KP Botany is engaged in is actually called out at some length. There is discussion of baiting, exagerated claims, insulting other users, misrepresenting facts, passive-aggressive postings, etc. Over the course of the past few weeks, I've experienced some of all of these and by browsing some of the history, I see that KP Botany is often in such dialogs (although, curiously, his/her pages on botany seem tremendous, so I guess this is mostly an issue when KP Botany gets passionate about topics outside of the botany field...). Most recently I see that KP Botany has gone on a bit of a cleanup, deleting a lot of those old arguments and leave his/her talk page rather clean and flattering. But it was more lively three or four days ago (I mean with respect to totally different disputes, not those relating to my two little contributions).
What to do about this? Well, those WP guidelines suggest that a cooling off period often solves conflicts. With that in mind, I won't be responding further to anything KP Botany choses to post here. I'll certainly respond to anyone else, but enough is enough on the KP Botany thing. He or she has made his or her points. Let's allow others who aren't in an angry mood to get involved, hopefully with a focus on the technical content here and the exposition, not on silly issues that probably come from outside Wikipedia or from other fights with other contributors... looks like there have been a lot of them... Ken Birman 20:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This was useful to me

I thought this article did a good job -- I came here looking for info on epidemic/gossip protocols, and learned most of what I wanted to know. The technical content and exposition is fine, and the prose is serviceable, though it could benefit a little from copy-editing. I'd like to see more details, but then again, that's what the references at the end are for.

But I'm a computer scientist, not a botanist, so what do I know... JensAlfke 23:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

While it's nice that so many folks want to show just how moronic botanists are, you don't help the situation and you don't help the article any by showing that it is for computer scientists rather than a general encyclopedia's audience. If you had simply written the first part without the snide personal attack on me, it might have shown some support of Ken's position. It was rather nice support of Ken, though, to imply, as he did, that botanists know nothing about computers. This simply shows that neither of you is reading in the botanical sciences these days, and that the article cannot be solely supported on its own merits without trying to take me down--in other words, ad hominem attacks prove necessary. So, if the article doesn't stand without insulting me, why are people so eager to support article?
My sister's a computer scientist. I asked her if she gets computer information from Wikipedia articles. She's still laughing as I type this. I'm trying to ask her if she uses Wikipedia, and where she goes to get general information about computer science topics, but she won't stop laughing. I don't think that Wikipedia's articles on computer science, including these, are generally all that bad, so I do want to find out what she is laughing about, but I don't think she's going to be much help. Maybe other computer scientists, like you, use Wikipedia as a source of technical information. That's fine. But that is not the intended audience for Wikipedia, it's a general encyclopedia.
By the way, I'm not a complete computer moron, I do know where to plug in the power cord before I call tech support to find out why the screen is black. I did have to call the one time there was no surge protector, but other than that.... KP Botany 17:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
KPBotany, this is getting absurd. Your shrill attacks aren't doing anyone any good. Your assumption I have a negative opinion of botany is rampant projection (I have a good friend who got her PhD in plant genetics, if you must know.) If you're this unable to remain calm and objective in a discussion of editing, you have absolutely no business volunteering your services (unasked-for). You also are looking in the wrong place if you insist on complaining about overly-technical content: you should really go look at some of the math articles. For example, see Cardinality -- a fundamental property of sets, but an article that beyond the first paragraph is unreadable by anyone without a graduate-level degree in math. Those articles could use some rewriting, but do read up on the subject a bit first before making your opinions known; some of those mathematicians can be really touchy. JensAlfke (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
JensAlfke, I appreciate the comments. In this case it might be possible to add more detail; I'll think about it (gossip protocols are pretty simple and I could give some examples). KP Botany, you and I agreed to abide by the WP:Conflict policy under which we're supposed to be in a cooling off period. You are supposed to direct your energy elsewhere and not look at these pages. I want to respectfully ask you to do as you agreed to do less than one week ago. Ken Birman 19:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I did not agree to direct my energies elsewhere and not look at these pages--in fact I clearly told you I would be monitoring these pages as long as there were problems with them. You wrote nasty comments about me here and others think that open season on me is necessary to support the articles--this is incorrect, and simply shows that there are, as I stated, too many problems with the articles to support them directly. If you and others persist in commenting about me, I will respond--simply stop talking about me, and I won't have anythign to respond to. Please bother to actually read what I wrote before telling me what I said.[3] KP Botany 01:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

And, take your comments about me to my talk page, not to this article. KP Botany 01:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protocol for removing tags?

For about six months now, this page has been tagged for Point of View, Original Research and Factual Accuracy. After a brief period of discussion and editing activity, nothing has happened for six months.

Here's my question: as a matter of policy, do such tags remain on the page forever, or is there some procedure for agreeing to remove them? It seems safe to assume that KPBotany, who placed them there, would not consider the matter resolved, since nothing substantive changed during this period. However, perhaps that particular reviewer will never find comfort with this material -- such things do sometimes happen. Ken Birman (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)