Talk:RSA Conference

Boycott

What happened to the conference boycott after 2014? Did the concerns about RSA receiving bribes for a backdoor go away? --176.0.102.205 (talk) 12:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft

Hi. I am affiliated with the RSA Conference. The current article is Start class and made up primarily of (1) indiscriminate lists of themes and topics (2) content sourced to primary sources from the conference. I have put together a draft of a much improved article here that is more encyclopedic, focuses much more on the conference's history, and relies primarily on credible, independent sources. Although the existence of more controversy and less promotion in the draft should alleviate COI concerns, I am proposing the draft here on Talk in compliance with WP:COI and requesting fair review/consideration by disinterested, crowd-sourced Wikipedians. CorporateM (Talk) 14:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I personally find the current article to be much better. While it has less info, it at least has less "marketing speak" than the draft. The draft also relies a bit too much on this source (and another by the same author). The first line itself "The RSA Conference is the largest IT security conference series in the field with approximately 45,000 annual attendees." seems like promo speak to me. In addition, there is quite a lot of trivia. Sorry, but the draft needs to be fundamentally rewritten. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Lemongirl942:. I can take a second stab at it, but I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from. You said the draft relies too heavily on this article. That article is written by Tim Greene, a staff journalist at Network World and is one of the best, most in-depth reliable sources available. Relying heavily on it seems only natural.

My understanding (maybe @John Broughton: can chime in, since I think he taught me this ages ago) was that the first sentence should define the subject and explain why it's notable. While the draft may be imperfect, it's hard to imagine it being more promotional than the current article, which says stuff like "With the widespread use of security and the necessity of information security, attendees hail from all different types of industries." CorporateM (Talk) 15:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence needs to explain the topic. But it doesn't need to scream out the notability. It should simply describe what it is. For example "RSA Conference is a cryptography and information security-related conference." reads much better. Adding the number of attendees is information overload for the first sentence. Yes, the current article is not perfect, but it is better than the draft. The draft definitely has WP:WEIGHT issues and I see a bit too much focus on trivia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Lemongirl942:. I reviewed the draft to consider what content you may feel is trivia. It does include information about the content of specific RSA conferences like the CEO rapping on stage. I could see how this might look like it was incorporated as random trivia. These events were actually included based on what Network World felt were the 10 most important events in the conference's history. The title of the Network World article describes these as the "most momentous" events in the conference's 25-year history. Different editors vary on what extent we incorporate what the sources feel are important, versus what "common sense" dictates is serious historical information appropriate for an encyclopedia. I'm happy to trim them if you feel strongly, but wanted to provide the context that I included them in the draft because the source specifically said they were important to the conference's history.

Please let me know if you are referring to something else and I am way off. Best regards. CorporateM (Talk) 04:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

If I did say, at one point, that the first sentence should establish notability, that is certainly no longer true - per WP:MOS, "The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences."

I've not had time to review the draft/replacement article in any depth, but my first reaction is that RSA Conference is an organization. Most of what it does is conferences, but not all: https://www.rsaconference.com/about/rsac-cyber-safety , for example.

Finally, while there isn't a rule against citing a single source a large number of times (as far as I know), it has a touch of WP:UNDUE about it. If the source is a book, a large number of cites is easily defensible; for an article, I tend to believe that if the facts being covered aren't available elsewhere (that is, there is no other reliable source), then maybe they're not newsworthy/important enough to be in an encyclopedia. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 05:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@John Broughton: Any thoughts on the trivia issue? (see above) CorporateM (Talk) 12:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of the sentence that begins "In a 2002 keynote ... " [and, as an aside, you're linking to a disambiguation page]; that's not particularly newsworthy, in my opinion. But things like Bill Gates being the keynote speaker, and other text that is supported by source 4, seem fine to me. [I also appreciate that source 4 doesn't seem to be used solely by itself.]

I do suggest that further efforts be made to distinguish the organization from its conferences; that would mean using "organization" or "company" where applicable. Also, I realize that the matter is complicated by there starting (after what year?) to be more than one conference. One way to handle this is to explicitly state (I may have missed this, I note) that "Starting in 20xx, the organization bean holding more than one conference per year", plus using the phrase "a 20xx conference" (or "the main 20xx conference", or "the U.K. conference in 20xx") for later years, with "the 20xx conference" for the years when there was just one. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @John Broughton:. I'll re-work the draft over the weekend and see if I can put something together aligned with all the feedback. CorporateM (Talk) 13:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Second draft

The current article has some instances of promotion, is incomplete, and made up primarily of indiscriminate lists. In response to the feedback above, I've made substantial changes to a draft article intended to replace it with something closer to the GA standard. In response to the feedback, I've reduced the article's reliance on a Network World piece, trimmed items that could be seen as trivia, added information on when the conference expanded to Asia/Europe/UAE, reworked the Lead and made other tweaks.

There is one change I haven't made; @John Broughton: asked that I focus more on the organization running the conference, but I was unable to find any information on this. I asked the RSA conference folks themselves, who said it is independently run, but legally indistinguishable from RSA Security. I have no sources to verify this (not even an annual report or primary source).

As I have a conflict of interest, now that the feedback has been addressed, I wanted to circle back and request review/consideration of the piece. CorporateM (Talk) 19:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• For that RSA thing, can you get rid of the RT reference and get the Washington Post piece that it supposedly cites? That particular bit of information isn't necessarily a neutral fact. Otherwise, I don't have a problem with that one. I'll see if I can get to the others though, as usual, I can't promise anything. I look forward to your check. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies:  Done I replaced the RT citation with the Washington Post article it was citing. Happy to trim it as well if you feel it is not neutral. CorporateM (Talk) 13:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Corp, I don't have any big problem, I think, with the content--go for it. Oh, it needs moving--let me have a look. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

link to the "International Cybersecurity Congress" in Moscow

Currently (July 2017) there is a very large conference going on in Moscow (but obviously not quite as large as the RSA) with thousands of guest-speakers from a cross-section of industry, meritting a link in the article. the livefeed is carried on eblnews.com/video/live-intl-cybersecurity-congress-moscow-448976 Cheers126.161.158.182 (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

History updates

Hi. I have a disclosed conflict of interest. The page hasn't been updated much for the last five years. Therefore, I'd like to propose a few sentences be added to the end of the History section to keep the page up-to-date on recent ownership changes:

Proposed Updates

The conference restored in-person events the following year. In 2020, RSA Conference and its parent company, RSA Security, were acquired by several investors in a $2 billion deal. Two years later, RSA Security sold a majority interest in RSA Conference to private equity firm Crosspoint Capital Partners. RSA Security sold its remaining interest in the RSA Conference events business to other investors in 2022. References

Additionally, I suggest replacing the image in the infobox with a photograph of a more recent conference. I appreciate any more impartial editors evaluating the proposed edits per WP:COI. Pinging @Drmies: who was the last editor to chip-in on a COI request on this page. Best regards. CorporateM (Talk) 23:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Corp, I replaced the photo (it's better than the old one), but I see now that you had more on tap: I'll have a look. My check is in the mail, I'm sure. ;) Drmies (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Done, with a minor tweak in paragraphing and a few minor edits to the text already in the article. Take care, Drmies (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Updates

Hi. I have a disclosed conflict of interest with the RSA Conference. I wanted to bring attention to a few issues that have developed over time:

• Vendor Blogs: User @John Miller Cal: (presumably from CalSoft) recently added some content cited to vendor blogs, such as CalSoft's blog. I suggest trimming.
• Sponsors: The infobox has a list of sponsors, none of whom are current sponsors. The biggest sponsors currently are Cisco, Trellix, and Google Cloud Security (see here). I'm surprised listing sponsors is allowed pursuant to WP:NOTPRICE, but the infobox seems to have a parameter for it.
• Awards: Most of this section is cited to a broken link and a press release from 2018. This is RSA's new awards page if we want to update the broken link, or in the alternate if editor(s) want to do something else with the section cited to primary sources.

Pinging @Drmies: who has been involved in the page and answering similar requests in the past. CorporateM (Talk) 18:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• RSA? I had totally forgotten I did that, and was excited to see "RSA"--but it's not Retirement Systems of Alabama, otherwise you'd have a conflict of interest with my pension plan. As you know, I like my awards with secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Drmies:! Will you make whatever edits you deem appropriate RE the Awards and Sponsors issues or are you taking a pass on those items? I don't think there are any secondary sources available on the RSA awards programs. Apparently, RSA actually stands for Rivest–Shamir–Adlema, who are the three inventors of the RSA encryption method. However, there's also a lot of other RSA acronyms. CorporateM (Talk) 22:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

See what I did, CorporateM. Take care, Drmies (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)