Talk:Heartbleed/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Heartbleed. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Requesting periodic reassessment of "importance" for WikiProjects
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Internet/Assessment#Importance_scale gives Netscape Navigator as an example of a mid-importance article. There was a time that NS Navigator was the web browser.
Yes, Heartbleed probably was a top-importance article when the news first broke and it might still be, but within a month it will probably drop to High-importance and within 6 months it will probably be at mid-importance or lower.
If anyone sees this message after June 1, 2014 please re-assess the importance. Ditto if anyone sees this message after about December 1, 2014. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know if Heartbleed will ever drop to mid-importance. The ramifications of Heartbleed aren't just limited to mitigating the impacts of the exploit itself. Heartbleed was sort of a wake up call that a lot of infrastructure may depend on inadequately supported projects. We'll have to see the long term implications of Heartbleed to know for sure whether it was just a temporary crisis quickly forgotten or a key turning point in internet security. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 03:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- I hadn't construed importance as something time-dependent before reading this, but I think it makes sense for Heartbleed. Current view statistics show this article as being as popular as Internet... and these statistics are much lower than the peak. I agree Heartbleed should hopefully drop to High at some point, and perhaps to Mid in the long term. I wouldn't set it lower though. I had previously reduced the Computing importance from Top to High. --Chealer (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Entertainingly, while this article was reassessed as Mid-importance by WP:CSEC in 2016, it's still listed as Top-importance by WP:INET, which definitely feels a bit out-of-balance here in the latter half of 2018. I've requested a reassessment. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- (Correction, the article is WP:COMP Mid-importance, WP:CSEC Top-importance, which might still be pretty accurate. Still excessive to also be listed as WP:INET Top-importance, IMHO. Also, it seems the 2016 reassessment didn't change the importance rating, only the quality rating.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)