9

I read through this question and saw that none of the existing 10 answers attempted to provide specific references to the standard being discussed (ISO 27001). However, several answers provided essentially the right guidance. Rather than create an 11th answer I chose to edit the top rated right answer and add in specific references to the ISO/IEC standard.

You can see my edit in the 3rd revision here.

This edit was initially approved by reviewers, but then apparently rolled back by the author. The author commented

"if you are going to add references to 27k, that's fine - but completely changing the tone and focus of the question should at least happen after a conversation first. You attempted to take over my answer."

I don't see how I changed the tone or focus of the answer. I supported the authors existing points with specific citations of the standard that agreed with them. I did add sentences to more specifically answer the question but tried to leave as much of their original text as made sense. From my perspective the biggest change was adding the part at the end about password cracking, which I thought was worth mentioning and didn't see as conflicting with their other statements.

I don't many large edits like this because I do tend to agree that the original author's answer should be preserved as closely as possible. But from my perspective these changes seemed appropriate and improved the answer. Where did I go wrong?

14

My biggest problem is that the resulting edit has more your words than mine. There is no choice but to change tone when that happens.

You changed "terrible" to "wrong" and removed the entire text talking about the "wide ranging series of failures". The tone and focus fundamentally changed as a result. It went from OMGWTFBBQ! to an auditor's reasoned response ;)

DON'T GET ME WRONG: I'm cool with edits and improvements, and I appreciate the citations to the actual standard. But for an answer that very quickly received over 100 votes, one has to be sensitive to what people were responding to. Because my answer was light on substance, one might conclude that it is the tone that was primary.

I would also like to edit the answer to include your references, but I was hoping to chat with you first.

  • 9
    I can now see how making the wording change and removal of the final statement could reduce what was apparently your impassioned feelings on the practice. I was more focused on the precision of the content than whether the revisions carried over your original emotion. My apologies. Feel free to edit and include the standard references I provided, while preserving your tone. – PwdRsch Mar 13 '17 at 18:00
  • 3
    Isn't it great when something resolves easily and politely by just talking it out? In the internet, of all places! SE is indeed a special corner of this place :) – xDaizu Mar 22 '17 at 17:04

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .