![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
On the subject of notability, I would point out that not only are there various tools aimed at defeating EnCase specifically, but there are also books on it (see http://www.amazon.co.uk/Encase-Computer-Forensics-Official-Certified/dp/0782144357 for example). Courses are offered on it too: http://homepage.athenaclc.com/outlines/security/Computer%20Forensics%20and%20Investigations.pdf Mojo-chan ( talk) 16:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Encase is THE most common forensic toolkit around. IMO it is notable enough for an article. Fireice ( talk) 22:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I've restored the notability tag because this article has not yet passed WP:N, especially WP:WEB/ WP:PRODUCT, both of which cover software in some manner. Key issue is the lack of any sourcing from reliable sources to back up the claims made in the article TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 11:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The article stated that “Data recovered by EnCase has been used successfully in various court systems around the world, such as in the cases of the BTK Killer and David Westerfield”. The article gave several supporting references, but one of those references has now been removed: “Reference no longer available. Website no longer stores referenced article”.
There are two comments I want to make. The first is that I’m sure this is not a unique situation. It is an unfortunate fact of life that online references are not permanent. I have added many in the past, and I’m sure the same will happen to some of them, if it hasn’t already happened. But I have copies of the referenced articles as permanent proof, and I’m sure other people have them also. In this particular case, I was able to find copies of the removed reference on other websites: it, and the resulting discussions on those websites, contain valuable information.
There has to be a better way than just removing the reference from the Wikipedia article. What I have seen is the message “dead link” being tagged onto the reference, in other words, the reference remains, and anyone who wants to examine that reference has at least a starting point for a search (which is what I did). I don’t know what the Wikipedia standard is, but I think that is a good solution.
My second comment is that the removed reference was not about either the BTK killer or Westerfield, who were both convicted (the latter maybe wrongfully), but about a school teacher who was acquitted, despite the EnCase evidence. So some people might question if it was used “successfully” in that case.
So maybe one can justify removal of that reference, just not on the grounds given. However, an even better solution might be to use the reasons for the acquittal as the starting point for a section on the limitations of this software. TheTruth-2009 ( talk) 08:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
On the subject of notability, I would point out that not only are there various tools aimed at defeating EnCase specifically, but there are also books on it (see http://www.amazon.co.uk/Encase-Computer-Forensics-Official-Certified/dp/0782144357 for example). Courses are offered on it too: http://homepage.athenaclc.com/outlines/security/Computer%20Forensics%20and%20Investigations.pdf Mojo-chan ( talk) 16:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Encase is THE most common forensic toolkit around. IMO it is notable enough for an article. Fireice ( talk) 22:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I've restored the notability tag because this article has not yet passed WP:N, especially WP:WEB/ WP:PRODUCT, both of which cover software in some manner. Key issue is the lack of any sourcing from reliable sources to back up the claims made in the article TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 11:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The article stated that “Data recovered by EnCase has been used successfully in various court systems around the world, such as in the cases of the BTK Killer and David Westerfield”. The article gave several supporting references, but one of those references has now been removed: “Reference no longer available. Website no longer stores referenced article”.
There are two comments I want to make. The first is that I’m sure this is not a unique situation. It is an unfortunate fact of life that online references are not permanent. I have added many in the past, and I’m sure the same will happen to some of them, if it hasn’t already happened. But I have copies of the referenced articles as permanent proof, and I’m sure other people have them also. In this particular case, I was able to find copies of the removed reference on other websites: it, and the resulting discussions on those websites, contain valuable information.
There has to be a better way than just removing the reference from the Wikipedia article. What I have seen is the message “dead link” being tagged onto the reference, in other words, the reference remains, and anyone who wants to examine that reference has at least a starting point for a search (which is what I did). I don’t know what the Wikipedia standard is, but I think that is a good solution.
My second comment is that the removed reference was not about either the BTK killer or Westerfield, who were both convicted (the latter maybe wrongfully), but about a school teacher who was acquitted, despite the EnCase evidence. So some people might question if it was used “successfully” in that case.
So maybe one can justify removal of that reference, just not on the grounds given. However, an even better solution might be to use the reasons for the acquittal as the starting point for a section on the limitations of this software. TheTruth-2009 ( talk) 08:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)