User talk:Ivica.nikolic

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I noticed your edits to the NIST hash function competition article, and I wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia. May I ask, are you the Ivica Nikolić who is currently involved in that competition? I ask because we don't necessarily have any way to tell just from the username. If you are, then, again, welcome, and thanks for contributing - your contribution of independent references to the article is appreciated.

However, at the same time you should be aware of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines - go ahead and read that, but the short summary is that editing articles on a subject where you have a vested interest (such as the NIST contest) can be a problem, because of course everyone tends to take a positive view of themself. That can lead to unintentional violations of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.

In this case, while I appreciate that you may not perceive Cheetah as being broken, and may not appreciate seeing it listed that way, from Wikipedia's point of view, what matters is verifiability; in this case, the listing is based on an official comment to NIST that the "SHA-3 Zoo" listed as being a break. Consequently, I've restored Cheetah to the "Broken entrants" section for now. If you believe this is wrong, or at least that it is disputed by parties without an interest in the dispute, please provide references for this, or at least a discussion of where such references could be found.

Now that I've covered that issue, let me also urge you not to be discouraged simply because I reverted one of your edits. Our articles on cryptography (including hashes) could use many more editors with knowledge of the subject, so I hope you will contribute in this area, especially to help with referencing. Of course, we greatly prefer English language references on the English-language Wikipedia, but Russian (or other language) references are acceptable where there's no equivalent in English.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to bring them up on my talk page. You can also post them here, I'll see them. Material related to the competition should be posted on that article's talk page instead, so that anyone interested can see them. Thanks, and good luck. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

the SHA-3 Zoo that you are referring to is NOT the official NIST page for the SHA-3 competition. For some unclear reason our hash proposal Cheetah was declared as "Broken" on the Zoo. If Wikipedia's entry on the SHA-3 competition simply copies the results of the Zoo page, then you should change the title of this entry. On the other hand, if it reflects the actual situation of this competition, then Cheetah must not be considered a broken entrant. We are amused to see that our function is being discredited on Wikipedia. Ivica.nikolic (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that the SHA-3 Zoo isn't the official NIST site. However, the official NIST site has a comment by Danilo Gligoroski asserting that for short messages Cheetah has a problem. This appears to be what the SHA-3 Zoo is basing their opinion on (they list it as "broken", and reference a copy of that communication). It's listed as broken on Wikipedia because of the original comment and because of the SHA-3 Zoo listing it as broken. I do understand that you dispute this.

Wikipedia values verifiability above almost everything else; in choosing between your opinion that it is not broken and reports by uninterested parties that it is, we favor the latter because they are verifiable. If Mr. Gligoroski withdraws his comment, or the SHA-3 Zoo site withdraws its assertion that Cheetah is broken, then of course Wikipedia will also stop listing it as broken. Since you believe they are mistaken, I suggest you take this up with them. Otherwise, we simply report what other sources say about Cheetah; currently, they do say it is broken, so that's what we say. Thanks, — Gavia immer (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The official NIST site has comments on other designs as well but they are not "Broken" on the Zoo. On the other hand, some of the designs are broken, but in Zoo they are still "Yes". The Zoo is maintained by a group of people and not by the whole crypto community, hence in your entry you are presenting only the opinion of this group (or in our particular case, the opinion of one single student). I have no intention further to discuss this issue, I already got the meaning of Wikipedia's objectivity. Ivica.nikolic (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. Please do feel free to change your mind. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)