Talk:BrowseAloud

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

No consensus but discussion on a repurposing needed, 20 February 2018, see discussion.
(ongoing), 20 February 2018 (UTC), see discussion.
relist at AfD, 20 February 2018 (UTC), see DRV discussion.
delete, 20 November 2017 (UTC), see discussion.
keep, 20 October 2010 (UTC), see discussion.
keep, 18 July 2009 (UTC), see discussion.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Disability

BrowseAloud is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles

Sunday

It is - of course - significant that the malware was activated on a Sunday, the day of the week when IT and customer support departments are least likely to be fully active. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Monday 26th March

I am not familiar with the cultural norms that exist around editing Wikipedia, however I am concerned about serious factual inaccuracies in this article. I deleted the inaccurate chunk of the file, and clearly stated my conflict of interest in the edit. I am the CTO at Texthelp, and among 6 people who are fully aware of the extent of the attack. I have analytic information on the infected file and can prove it - I would prefer to let the matter die however. Here are some facts that I can prove. It was served to 500 people per hour over a three hour period. The product is not Malware. It did not impact 4200 websites - this was uninformed speculation based on an assumption that all sites that point to that file would have loaded it. We have threat detection in place and took down the infected JS file. The vast majority of users would be using a locally cached or CDN edge cached version of the JS file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinAKMcKay (talk • contribs) 12:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some principles which I suggest you familiarise yourself with:

Wikipedia:Verifiability - all statements in articles should be verifiable to a reliable published source. Your internal logs do not qualify for this, and we can't make statements in the article based on them.
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest - the fact that you work for this company means you shouldn't be editing this article. It is particularly concerning that you're trying to remove or play down negative information about the software, which is going to come across as the company trying to censor information about the software.

Hut 8.5 17:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful if you could identify particular aspects that are inaccurate, rather than simply removing a 6k referenced block. In particular, you are going to have a hard case to make that making visitor machines do cryptocurrency mining was not a malware attack, even if that was not BrowseAloud's function. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]