Talk:Bizatch
 | This page has been recently proposed for deletion (14 November 2024) by Sirfurboy (talk · contribs). |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Move to Boza (virus)?
[edit]@Pek There's no reliable source that the Boza virus was also called Bizatch (for the reliability of the blog, see User talk:Sirfurboy#Why did you propose Bizatch for deletion?). How about we move the article to Boza (virus)? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Why did you propose Bizatch for deletion?
[edit]
Hi. I noticed recently that you proposed Bizatch for deletion, because one of the sources is a blog. I know it's a blog, but it's a blog by Canadian Institute for Knowledge Development. According to their website, they say, quote: "Canadian Institute for Knowledge Development (CIKD) is an international, multi-disciplinary research, publishing, consulting and training institute which is one of the most expert institutions of its kind." Just because it's blog doesn't automatically mean the source is bad. --Pek (talk) 12:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Regardless of who they are, this is the view of the writer with no clear editorial process, and they do not state their sources. Their only mention of that virus is the claim it was the first one to affect Windows 95. If that is a notable claim, it will be found in a suitable secondary sources, and not someone's blog post. If it is notable and likely true, the writer of that post will have obtained the information from a reliable source themself. That is the source you are looking for. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'll add that a little research shows that the blog is, in fact, wrong. It was not the first to affect Windows 95. It is claimed it was the first only to affect Windows 95. It was also not found in the wild and not considered a threat. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- While I agree that this blog specifically is probably unreliable, I'm fairly sure that WP:RSSelf means that experts who don't have an editorial process or cite their sources can be cited if ReliableSources trust them.
Also, all the other sources seem very SigCov on the subject of Boza, though I can't find anything reliable that claims Bizatch is Boza. I think the article should be moved to Boza and omit mentions of the "Bizatch" name until somebody can find a good source linking them. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)- Whether a self published expert can be considered a RS for notability purposes is moot, as the writer of the blog is unnamed. There is usually some nuance that can be discussed but that one can be parked for now. On the other sources perhaps showing SIGCOV for Boza... there are three mentions from newspapers, all in February 1996. That is not WP:LASTING. The long term impact of that virus was, essentially, LIM f(t) = 0, as t -> infinity. Indeed it was pretty much zero within 2 weeks of discovery, was it not? And sorry, much as I liked the Independent back in the day, I would not recommend anyone going to that source for tech news. But the real problem is that all those news reports are primary sources, reporting the new virus discovery. Primary sources do not count towards notability.Put another way, what do we have here that we can write an encyclopaedic article about? A virus that claimed to be first of its kind, but that no secondary source confirms, and is not, in any case, that significant as a milestone. Win95 code was an evolution of Win3.x code after all. What else can we say? No one has bothered to study it or write on it or disassemble it and analyse it. It had no real impact, caused little real harm. If no one is writing secondary sources, we should not be writing tertiary sources. But I say this, knowing that it is moot here too. I used PROD. Someone always undoes a PROD on some vague "needs to go to AfD" line, usually on day 6. So no doubt this will all need saying again at AfD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Unlike any virus before it, Boza is designed to attack Windows 95. That alone is enough to boost its standing on the Big One rankings.
— LA Times
Well, I've contested the PROD. Notability is NotTemporary. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)"Boza will probably go down in history," says Paul Ducklin, an analyst for Sophos, a software company based in Abingdon, Oxfordshire, which specialises in writing programs to seek and destroy viruses. "It's the first that we've seen that affects Windows 95 programs in particular."
— The Indepedent- And what did you take from those two quotations in primary sources at the time of discovery? People often make predictions about the impact of a current event that turn out to be wrong. To show that this is notable you need secondary sources. As I said, neither of those will do. Not even remotely. And the question remains, what is the encyclopaedic subject that can be written here? It needs to be more than "this was believed to be the first virus to specifically infect Windows 95 and not previous versions". If that is all you have then you treat it in the way that the only other source on that page treats it: as a single sentence in a larger article in context. If you want to have a page about the subject you need an actual subject. There needs to be secondary analysis of this virus showing its lasting and permanent significance. I don't see any such. But as an example of something that comes close, it does get two paragraphs in this paper [1] (which also has 134 citations). There, at least, we learn that it targets Windows 95 portable executable (PE) files, which were new to Windows 95. Further it was unable to target NT PE files. We also learn the virus was self replicating but not harmful. And that is all. It is something, but it is not enough. Why should we have a whole page about this code and not do what every secondary source on earth does - and treat it in a sentence or a paragraph in an article or articles about viruses in general? You removed the PROD, so perhaps you could find the encyclopaedic subject that will lift this above permastub status. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- The secondary sources directly claimed it was significant with effects of encouraging antivirus adoption, therefore it was significant. NEvent's Lasting is only a near-guarantee of notability, not something that all event-ish articles need to meet to satisfy notability. I personally agree with this discussion about NotTemporary vs. Sustained (the latter of which I presume you meant), whose consensus on the balance is satisfied by articles published over 3 weeks with claims of heavy impact. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- One essentially harmless virus was not the significant factor for anti-virus adoption. What secondary source is even saying that? I see a news report, which is cleary primary per WP:PRIMARYNEWS that calls it a boon for antivirus makers, but the article is heavily reliant on information from an antivirus maker. Again, 3 news reports from the time that the infection was discovered (and in a 3 week period in 1996, that was very much the middle of the infection) are neither secondary nor a sign of lasting significance. That is self evidently
Brief bursts of news coverage [that] may not sufficiently demonstrate notability.
(WP:SUSTAINED). But again, the point of finding secondary sources is to demonstrate that there is a subject about which a page can actually be written, and WP:PAGEDECIDE pertains too. Every book and every mention of this virus in every secondary source in the whole world chooses to treat this as a mention in a larger article. Even the one I pointed to only has it as a 2 paragraph case study. If we were serious about meeting the information need of the reader here, we would do the same. A redirect would be in order to such an article where is is mentioned, but what exactly can we tell the reader in a whole article focussed just on this specific instance of malicious code? And what sources would speak to this article content? If we don't know that, then we don't have an indication that this is notable for an article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)- PrimaryNews is interesting, and massive thanks for the link, but even that section sort of disagrees: it directly paraphrases Yale's guide, saying reports that contain interpretations and analysis are secondary. I think the report published 3 weeks after the discovery satisfies Sustained as it isn't really part of the burst.
No, all of those articles except for the journal article you linked (again, great find) cover Boza as the main subject. I don't understand why you say it's just a few mentions when the virus is the headline and subject of analysis itself. Unless you're claiming that the article is about the infection and not the virus, which is a hard sell that would also disqualify a ton of articles. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Every book and every mention of this virus in every secondary source in the whole world chooses to treat this as a mention in a larger article.
- So the part you are not answering is this: what is the article here? What can we say about this virus? How can you save this from permastub status and refute the PAGEDECIDE considerations? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- The "vindication" of antiviral software, the drive in sales and panic (disproportionate to its effects, which can be elaborated upon by talking a bit about the mechanism). I would not oppose a merge to Computer virus#History, which would allow us to synthesize it with the Good Times hoax using [2]; however, deleting the article would make many sources much harder to find, thus I'm opposed to deletion. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, a merge with Computer virus would make sense and would be in line with this virus' treatment in secondary sources. Do you think we need to propose a formal merge discussion? Or can we just bold merge, do you think? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- The "vindication" of antiviral software, the drive in sales and panic (disproportionate to its effects, which can be elaborated upon by talking a bit about the mechanism). I would not oppose a merge to Computer virus#History, which would allow us to synthesize it with the Good Times hoax using [2]; however, deleting the article would make many sources much harder to find, thus I'm opposed to deletion. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- So the part you are not answering is this: what is the article here? What can we say about this virus? How can you save this from permastub status and refute the PAGEDECIDE considerations? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- PrimaryNews is interesting, and massive thanks for the link, but even that section sort of disagrees: it directly paraphrases Yale's guide, saying reports that contain interpretations and analysis are secondary. I think the report published 3 weeks after the discovery satisfies Sustained as it isn't really part of the burst.
- One essentially harmless virus was not the significant factor for anti-virus adoption. What secondary source is even saying that? I see a news report, which is cleary primary per WP:PRIMARYNEWS that calls it a boon for antivirus makers, but the article is heavily reliant on information from an antivirus maker. Again, 3 news reports from the time that the infection was discovered (and in a 3 week period in 1996, that was very much the middle of the infection) are neither secondary nor a sign of lasting significance. That is self evidently
- The secondary sources directly claimed it was significant with effects of encouraging antivirus adoption, therefore it was significant. NEvent's Lasting is only a near-guarantee of notability, not something that all event-ish articles need to meet to satisfy notability. I personally agree with this discussion about NotTemporary vs. Sustained (the latter of which I presume you meant), whose consensus on the balance is satisfied by articles published over 3 weeks with claims of heavy impact. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- And what did you take from those two quotations in primary sources at the time of discovery? People often make predictions about the impact of a current event that turn out to be wrong. To show that this is notable you need secondary sources. As I said, neither of those will do. Not even remotely. And the question remains, what is the encyclopaedic subject that can be written here? It needs to be more than "this was believed to be the first virus to specifically infect Windows 95 and not previous versions". If that is all you have then you treat it in the way that the only other source on that page treats it: as a single sentence in a larger article in context. If you want to have a page about the subject you need an actual subject. There needs to be secondary analysis of this virus showing its lasting and permanent significance. I don't see any such. But as an example of something that comes close, it does get two paragraphs in this paper [1] (which also has 134 citations). There, at least, we learn that it targets Windows 95 portable executable (PE) files, which were new to Windows 95. Further it was unable to target NT PE files. We also learn the virus was self replicating but not harmful. And that is all. It is something, but it is not enough. Why should we have a whole page about this code and not do what every secondary source on earth does - and treat it in a sentence or a paragraph in an article or articles about viruses in general? You removed the PROD, so perhaps you could find the encyclopaedic subject that will lift this above permastub status. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Whether a self published expert can be considered a RS for notability purposes is moot, as the writer of the blog is unnamed. There is usually some nuance that can be discussed but that one can be parked for now. On the other sources perhaps showing SIGCOV for Boza... there are three mentions from newspapers, all in February 1996. That is not WP:LASTING. The long term impact of that virus was, essentially, LIM f(t) = 0, as t -> infinity. Indeed it was pretty much zero within 2 weeks of discovery, was it not? And sorry, much as I liked the Independent back in the day, I would not recommend anyone going to that source for tech news. But the real problem is that all those news reports are primary sources, reporting the new virus discovery. Primary sources do not count towards notability.Put another way, what do we have here that we can write an encyclopaedic article about? A virus that claimed to be first of its kind, but that no secondary source confirms, and is not, in any case, that significant as a milestone. Win95 code was an evolution of Win3.x code after all. What else can we say? No one has bothered to study it or write on it or disassemble it and analyse it. It had no real impact, caused little real harm. If no one is writing secondary sources, we should not be writing tertiary sources. But I say this, knowing that it is moot here too. I used PROD. Someone always undoes a PROD on some vague "needs to go to AfD" line, usually on day 6. So no doubt this will all need saying again at AfD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think we could just bold merge. Nobody would see this article, so the merge discussion would take forever. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)