Talk:Spyware

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Spyware is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article Milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 12, 2006.
Article Milestones Date Process Result July 12, 2005 Peer review Reviewed August 22, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted December 25, 2006 Featured article review Demoted Current Status: Former featured article

This article is part of WikiProject Malware, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to Malware. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Engtech article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2004 press source article for details. The citation is in: "Tech Tuesday: Stop Spam & Spyware.", Yahoo! News, January 10, 2005.

	To-do list for Spyware:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
To-do list Add fair use rationales to all of the fair use images used in this article Review User consent & legality section, citing any recent cases we can find involving spyware distributors Review related categories Category:Spyware and Category:Spyware removal Solicit improvement on WP:IDRIVE Make a wiki site on Spyware and Other Malicious Programs -- 12.220.244.143 This latter one does not fit with the mission of Wikipedia; maybe it would work for a Wikibook, but not here on Wikipedia. -- LGagnon 02:32, September 5, 2005 (UTC) Recurring problems Insertion of spam links Insertion of unsourced claim of non-Windows spyware (this will cease to be a "problem" if non-Windows spyware is observed and documented!) Alteration of lead paragraph from "Spyware is thus-and-so" to "'Spyware' is a term that means thus-and-so" -- Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this article is about spyware, not about the word "spyware". Recommendations and didactic content -- "People should do this" -- Wikipedia is not a how-to guide or list of recommendations

Archives
archive 1

Contents 1 Talk Page Archived 2 Removals from "Fake anti-spyware programs" section 3 Identity Theft section 4 External link suggestion

[edit] Talk Page Archived

Due to the previous length of this Talk Page, I have archived the previous contents (under Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page) to Talk:Spyware/Archive 1. Anyone who wishes to continue an old discussion, please visit the archive and copy over the discussion to here.

Kind regards,
anthonycfc ^[talk] 14:51 December 29, 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this, though please be careful not to archive templates, as these then start listing Spyware/Archive1 as a Version 0.5 article, etc. Cheers, Walkerma 17:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Apologies - should have substed them prior to archiving, then reverted self. anthonycfc ^[talk] 06:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removals from "Fake anti-spyware programs" section

I'm puzzled by the recent removal of 15 or so red-linked product names from this list, with edit summary "long list not helpful". Although wiki has no detailed article for any of these, IMO their very presence on the list is valuable information that should not be removed. --CliffC 04:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Typically a list of names with no further information is not helpful for an article. Other technology articles keep list sizes reasonable by including only notable entries, which is determined by the existence of an article. If something significant is missing, create an article on it and then include the item in the list. In the long run, that whole section should be eliminated and replaced by explanatory text as described in the embedded list guideline. Otherwise the list is only useful for people who are familiar with the topic (and they don't need the list!). JonHarder ^talk 14:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand, but maybe this is one of those wiki rules that's made for breaking. I'm thinking of Joe Doakes getting an invitation to download (using one removed entry as an example) Malware Wipe. He does a Google for it and up comes a Wikipedia (trusted source!) link showing that puppy in Spyware or List of fake anti-spyware programs. I think that would be a public service, and A Good Thing. --CliffC 22:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

How about maintaining the list only in List of fake anti-spyware programs and just providing a link to it from this article? That way only one list needs to be maintained and the descriptive content can be expanded here, using a few of the notable programs with articles as examples. The list article could be expanded with additional information such as platform, date of appearance, citations, etc. Do you think there are examples that are important enough to list but not notable enough to have their own article? JonHarder ^talk 15:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"maintaining the list only in List of fake anti-spyware programs and just providing a link to it from this article" sounds good, and I appreciate the difficulty of maintaining multiple lists. Whether there are examples important enough to list without their own article, yes, I think every one that is known is important enough to be listed; it's like walking along with a friend and saying "look out, don't step in that" – the pile that's avoided doesn't need further description, we know what it is and we don't need to know what particular breed left it. --CliffC 18:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, it looks like we are arriving at an agreement. The list can be totally removed from this article. The list at List of fake anti-spyware programs can be expanded, hopefully not only in the number of applications listed but also with additional content about each entry. Maybe some sort of table format. If having an article is not to be a requirement to be in the list, at least a citation to some external source should be found. I'll let the editors here work out the details. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Identity Theft section

This section is being continually reverted to include a NY Times article mentioning the loss of money, according to John Bambenek. Bambenek is a non-notable who had his personal vanity page deleted three times from Wikipedia and is known for using sock puppets, including impersonation of contributors to Wikipedia who work/live in the same geographic area as him. Regardless of the time that the link was listed (which was just under 12 months, not the 18 that the anon reverter has stated), that does not give it credibility. Bambenek does not have enough credibility to have this link stand alone. I have removed the offending statement, and am looking for a more credible source to convey this information. --Justinm1978 05:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to leave this well-sourced information (from an in-depth NY Times article) in place until you find a "more credible" equivalent? Sounds like you're going pretty far out of the way to avoid mentioning a name that's unpopular to some folks here. I never heard of Bambenek until I saw his name show up in this article, but facts are facts, and the Times thinks he's credible enough to quote. As to whether his name should be mentioned, do we never attribute a quote to a wiki "non-notable"? Is there a rule about this for those charged with such offenses against the wiki as you mention? --CliffC 12:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Like the Times has never quoted someone who is completely blowing smoke up their tailpipes. I replaced the offending sentence with information from the Federal Trade Commission, and surprise, their numbers differ from Bambenek's. All things being equal, I'm fairly certain that the FTC is a better source of information that a non-notable blogger who routinely attaches himself to subjects he is far from an expert on. In checking back through the revisions, the original sentence was added by an anon source, with an IP originating from the Champaign-Urbana area, where Bambenek is from. This lends a lot less credibility to using that article, and even less when the information given conflicts greatly with the FTC. --Justinm1978 15:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That FTC cite does the job perfectly, good find. I got most of the material for the Movieland spyware article from the FTC, bless them and their works. As to the Times getting smoked, WP:V says "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", so we're off the Truth hook whenever we say "the Times says that so-and-so said [whatever]". Wiki reports, you decide. --CliffC 15:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:BAMBI is clear, John Bambenek is to be mentioned in no articles on Wikipedia or the individual doing so will be permanently banned. He is a censored subject.

[edit] External link suggestion

The "Prevention" part of the External links should include a link to: Securing Your Web Browser

Spyware is often introduced to a system through a web browser that is not securely configured. The above CERT/CC guide shows how to configure various web browsers in a secure manner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikiuser2010 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC).