Spyware edit
This has been a relatively popular article (#9 hit on Google for "spyware") and has been cited in mainstream media. User:LGagnon and I have been getting it in shape in the hopes that it can soon become a featured article. It has been broadly stable and uncontroversial, although there was recently a minor issue with link spamming.
In seeking peer review, I'm primarily looking for anything that is noticeably missing from the article. The subject is one about which a lot of people have strong subjective views, but I'd like to know what objective, research-based information people know about that should be added. We already have a lot of references, but any additional ones which are solid research would be most welcome. --FOo 20:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- A few things I recommend doing:
- Expand the History & development section.
- expand and rename the Categories section (maybe "What constitutes spyware"); an in-depth comparison to viruses and worms (and malware in general) may help.
- The Typical examples section seems a bit small. a few more examples (I recommend using very well known spyware) could make it look a bit meatier.
- The User consent and legality section has 2 government links. I highly recommend citing these as done with other references. Similarly, other links without mention in the References section should be formatted for that section (many still remain).
- The Anti-spyware programs section might improve if we mention prevention methods implemented by Javacool Software's SpywareBlaster and SpywareGuard. Both are quite unique amongst anti-spyware programs.
- There's a lot of text with a lot of facts in it; more cited references always helps. What adds more credibility to your article only makes it stronger. :) -- LGagnon 02:39, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Certainly a listing of databases for anti-spyware research ought to be included. There are many noteable entries missing that pertain to various sections like the O16s, O2s, O3s, O4s, O23s, et al. There are also other noteable spyware/adware database links missing.--Paul Laudanski 05:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- Let's try to only add notable and/or the most useful links. We've got a huge External links section already, and we shouldn't let it detract from the encyclopediac purpose of the article. After all, Wikipedia is not a link farm. -- LGagnon 21:50, July 13, 2005 (UTC)