[cap-talk] Wikipedia audience (Ambience)

[Rob Meijer]

On Sun, June 7, 2009 06:20, Steve Witham wrote:
> I find this confusing (I find a lot of the conversation on this
> list confusing) even though I consider myself a convert and hang
> out here a lot.  Weak-minded unmotivated unwashed = *your audience*.

Such a classification of *your audience* seems to be a pretty common one
amongst experts of many kinds, and one that produces rather unproductive
attempts at communication. Your audience is for a large part *YOU* in an
other field of expertise. A good way for me personally to think about the
audience for infosec related subjects, is to think about myself on medical
related subjects. I have little to no interest in medicine UNLESS it
impacts or could potentially impact my own health, at what my interest
becomes highly increased and focused.

Looking at defining ambient authority, you may wish to look at yourself
suffering from a particular symptom. Looking on the Internet you find a
wikipedia entry on a decease called 'ambienitus' that includes your
symptom.
In this case, the main things you would want to know would be:

* How do I know if I have ambientitus?

If I know I don't have ambientitus, I'm out, off to find other
possible sources of my symptom.
If it is likely that I have ambientitus, I would want to know:

* How bad is it? Is it fatal?

If it isn't bad and symptoms will pass in a short period, I'm done.
If it is bad or permanent, I would want to know:

* Is it curable, and if it is what possible cures are there, and what are
  the side effects of the cures.

If any of the questions answered would divert me from the above path, I
would instantly lose interest in knowing the rest. If the description was
in a sequence that made me have to learn about ambientitus in depth only
at the end allowing me to find out that I can't possibly have ambientitus,
I would end up pretty annoyed having to read all this 'useless'
information.

I feel that treating the audience as smart, motivated (and very likely
washed) people that are looking for answers, not general knowledge, is the
most useful and realistic approach.


> Wikipedia succeeds for me when I can find out about a field that
> I'm a complete newb in.  The best pages sort of walk you into
> deeper and deeper water as you go, letting you judge how far you
> have to go before stopping and working at it, then how much farther
> before you have to give up.

Exactly, so aren't you glad the people in that field didn't  treat you
like like an intellectually challenged and unmotivated?

Rob