Talk:Code Shikara
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Code Shikara article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Removal of statistics by Pppery
editUser:Pppery I contest your removal of the statistics section which you claiming to be unsourced. In reality, it can be seen in the diff that it did reference an existing source at the end (kaspersky). bkil (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Are you deliberately WP:HOUNDING me? You've challenged four of my edits in a very short period of time. Yes, those edits technically did have a source, but even so I fail to see the value of including seven-year-old stats here? * Pppery * it has begun... 18:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
It is usually desirable to update stats periodically, however, I think this one is an exception. Global infection rate of a given worm is expected to decline over time as systems are patched. Thus, one may see it more relevant to see stats near the outburst or around the peak. I can't vouch for whether 2017 is the "most optimal" timing for illustrative purposes, but it feels to reside within an "okay" range. -bkil (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Even if you're right, the content fails verification - neither the linked source nor the closest available archive from that time period contain the relevant numbers. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I checked the source code of the linked web app for you. The file that could prove this statement is the following: [1] The badly implemented web app could not be scraped by some public web archivers (so it only shows a default country in the archive). If you can find an archiver that did succeed, you can verify what the standing was in 2017. The point that is that at the point of copying these facts into the article, the link was a verifiable source of truth. It's immaterial that you can not verify it right now (but you might just be able to later on as better archivers open up their previous crawls). We don't remove facts from Wikipedia just because sources that back them up went broken since writing the article - that's a natural faith of web pages. The point of verification is assumed to happen at or around the time of the article edit. You may refuse to accept my new edit, had I wanted to paste in this table backing it up with this link in 2024, but this is clearly not the case. -bkil (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm still not seeing how that link supports the given stats. And my understanding of verifiability is that content should be verifiable at any given moment, not merely the moment it was added, which is why we have bots making millions of edits replacing dead links with pointers to the Wayback Machine. But whatever, feel free to do as you see fit as I don't care enough to get into an edit war (across any of these four articles) and we've reached the point where it's clear neither of us is going to convince the other of their position. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)