Talk:Stagefright (bug)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Never quote?

Claim: "It's always better to provide own wording instead of quoting the fragments from sources."

Counterclaim: It is absolutely not always better. It's often a good idea to quote sources (with credit), because the text is then a more accurate reflection of the source material. An article shouldn't be just quotes, but an article that only paraphrases is often problematic. The Wikipedia guidance page on quotations, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations , says (and I quote): "Quotations are a good tool to comply with the no original research policy but must be used with care... While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them." Dwheeler (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Sorry, I haven't expressed myself clearly enough – quotes aren't bad per se, but please let's take the article length into consideration as well. In short articles, quotations IMHO don't look good; it's similar to how I've listed the CVE numbers in a footnote so they don't distract the readers from the main content. Once the article grows, as the bug becomes fully disclosed etc., we'll move the CVEs into the article body and perhaps re-introduce some useful quotations. As an example, in the BIOS article we have a few rather long quotations that I and one other editor have "fighted" against becoming removed, while another editor was strongly against leaving them as part of the article; though, the BIOS article is rather long so the quotations fit very well. Hope you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Mitigations

Brief mitigation information needs to be in this article. For many readers that is the most important information about the topic, and since many devices will probably never be upgraded, it will probably stay that way. Dwheeler (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, you're absolutely right. The actual wording, which was somewhat vague and rather non-encyclopedic, motivated me to delete the content; now it reads much better, and I'll get it improved a bit further. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The content is now improved further, please check it out. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Contextual information

Please add more contextual information about Stagefright-the-module, not just the-bug. How many versions are in public use, what are the the version names and dates? How big is the module? Who coded it? Is it open-source; if so, where is the source? (I don't know enough to know what makes sense, and if I spent a lot of time researching Android as a whole I'd know a lot more -- but it seems like many that come to this article would like a (somewhat technical) introduction to Stagefright-in-context without having to wade into all of Android...)-96.233.20.34 (talk) 12:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense, will provide some more information about the Stagefright library itself. Thank you for the suggestion! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Got the article slightly expanded so it provides some more information on the Stagefright library itself. IMHO, going further into details at the current size of the article wouldn't be beneficial to the article as a whole. Later, when the bug is publicly disclosed and the article grows, we'll expand the description further. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I hope that over time this can evolve to be a general article about this library module component, with a portion about the bug aspect.-96.233.20.34 (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Totally, that's the plan, but not before the full public disclosure of the Stagefright bug that is a few days away. Then we'll have enough sources for writing more about the bug itself, justifying the addition of more content about the library background. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)