User:Jruderman

I'm Jesse Ruderman. I worked for Mozilla a security bug hunter during my life as a computer programmer. After that, I didn't seek employment for more than a few years. But as of 26 Jul 2024, I have a new plan. More broadly, I've just started fixing every other aspect of my life that is suboptimal. All at once.

My website is http://www.squarefree.com/ and I tweet at https://twitter.com/jruderman.

• My professional interest in computer security, especially fuzz testing and memory safety
• The politics of economic policy: YIMBY movement, Gini coefficient
• Applications of genetics, such as [censored temporarily to comply with policy] and exploring ethical boundaries related to eugenics
• Whatever I'm reading on my phone because someone just brought up the subject at a dinner party. Gotta be polite by having something to contribute to the conversation!

I am one of many autistic Wikipedia editors. Collaborating on Wikipedia is one of my favorite ways of interacting with people, as it plays to my strengths rather than my weaknesses. We're focused on a project rather than socializing in an open-ended way; I can take my time to think about my responses; my tendency to pursue interests deeply prepares me to improve articles in a way that complements others' broader interests.

I'm more careful about including detailed edit summaries and precise references when I'm working in a controversial area or on a page that's already high-quality.

Likewise, when many are watching a page, I split up my edits into chunks to make it easier for others to verify that each edit summary matches the corresponding changes:

• When the diff algorithm gets confused about how to display multiple changes (example: overall change is confusing, but renumbering followed by insertion is clear)
• When I want to explain my justification for each substantial change, or when substantial changes are necessarily interleaved with copyedits (example: page history of YIMBY movement c. July 2024).

My approach to back-and-forth edits is based more around vibes than about an immutable limit on the number of revert-ish edits. If it seems like we're converging on a mutually agreeable solution, I'm more likely to continue with edits and edit summaries. If it requires more thought and broader compromise, I'm more likely to take it to a talk page. If consensus seems elusive, I'm more likely to back down.

I'm a gnome by default. My first pass reading of an article focuses on clear use of punctuation and sensitive use of language. Later, I may come back to address holistic concerns such as organization and fairness.

I take a reader-centric approach to neutrality. I see NPOV as implying a requirement that we take into account cognitive biases likely to affect how readers interpret our articles:

• Do not connect a topic to an emotionally salient category earlier than necessary (non-central fallacy) (example: The YIMBY movement and "supply-side economics")
• Avoid introducing incorrect claims, even if described as incorrect (anchoring bias) (example: IQ heritability estimates and economic policy)
• _____ (reification bias) (example: "Dysgenics is...")
• But don't name cognitive biases in article text (e.g. when describing someone's terrible opinion). We don't want visitors to feel like the article is demanding to debate them on its podcast. The language of cognitive bias is for edit summaries and talk pages.

I frequently include primary sources in addition to secondary sources. Secondary sources are great for establishing notability and proper synthesis, but sometimes a primary source is ideal for establishing that something is actually true.

• Reason magazine says Scott Wiener is part of the YIMBY movement. And so does Scott Wiener.
• This reliable source says Rust's lifetime analysis is a key part of its approach to memory safety. And so does official documentation.

I endorse Wikipedia:Thread-mode disclaimer: it is okay for anyone to refactor my comments in a way that preserves my meaning and improves the readability of the overall discussion.

I occasionally edit others' comments to fix small errors that have high impact on readability. I am careful to do this only when it is an unambiguous mistake, when my change is an unambiguous improvement, and when these criteria are easily verifiable by anyone watching the talk page history. If you're happy for me to make slightly bolder improvements to your comments, let me know or link to Wikipedia:Thread-mode disclaimer on your user page.

I often subscribe to H2 sections of talk pages rather than watching the entire page. This method means I sometimes miss additions to a conversation that are not written as signed replies, as those are the only ones that trigger notifications.

In complex situations, I may create procedures for non-threaded forms of discussion:

• House demolition move discussion (ongoing)
  • Big table
• 2024 CrowdStrike incident move discussion (ongoing)
  • Imposed majority-judgment voting during a mid-discussion poll for the best title
  • Wrote a Recap section to help everyone prepare for the final discussion
  • Transitioned us back from polling to focused, organized, policy-based discussion about the top candidates and individual words

I am interested in the accessible use of color:

• Infobox for US Supreme Court rulings – text–background color contrast
• Infobox for countries – use of color to indicate whether a stat is good or bad (under discussion)

Shepherding discussions:

• 2024 CrowdStrike incident move discussion (ongoing)

Lowering the temperature:

• Stopped an edit war (about whether to include a section) by boldly imposing an compromise based on the magic of hypertext
• Stopped a heated talk-page argument by explaining how following policy can address each side's concerns

Article content:

• Wrote a good portion of the Fuzz testing article.
• Contributed to lists in articles: Types of software vulnerabilities and Types of memory safety errors

• Settings:
  • Links to disambiguation pages – orange
• common.css:
  • Discussion anchors – makes it easier to link to a specific comment in a threaded discussion
  • Watch page – highlight page names
  • Watch page – hide thank/rollback buttons
• Experimenting with:
  • Definition list styling – so I can notice if ; is misused for pseudo-headings or : is misused for indentation (outside of talk pages)
  • Links through redirects – green?

• hatnotes
• sans-serif
• "dysgenics"
• "eugenics"
• Stay tuned if you know what I'm going to post about next