Talk:Gigabyte (virus writer)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Computer Security / Computing   
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
 

Entry lifted[edit]

The first version of this entry was lifted completely from the Gigabyte entry from the Wikia wiki on viruses. here is the original entry. This is my wiki and though I'm not mad, I'd just like some credit. Virushunter.wikia (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Bias[edit]

The article doesn't include one word of criticism about her. It describes her as an "ethical" virus-writer, and the section on her arrest argues that there's no case against her. It says that none of her viruses cause "significant" damage, despite this being a subjective term. The humourousness of her viruses is likewise subjective. It does not include her name. Also, "Although her website had the text "Bill Gates is Satan", and she once described Bill Gates as "ugly", this may have just been for humor."? Please forgive any frustration in my tone. 12.181.125.92 (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Article slashed[edit]

I have cut the article back to almost nothing. It had no inline citations. Many of its "sources" didn't work. The tone of the article was unencyclopedic. The arrest reports create BLP issues. Unless something is done to support the article and the notability of its subject, I will nominate it for deletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I looked in to this a bit yesterday. There is a fair amount of discussion partially I think because of her being a her and also not shy of publicity at the time. In terms of RS, there are a bunch of sources on the arrest largely saying the same thing [1] [2]. There's also brief mention here [3]. There was an interview with TechTV which seems to be unavailable from the source (originally [4]) [5] although the text at least is still available in archive.org [6] and some other borderline RS e.g. [7]. All in all I agree doesn't seem to have great deal of RS coverage for a BLP and even what we do have tends to be somewhat borderline. Nil Einne (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Ultimately, it comes down to whether a precocious female teenager who hacks websites is sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article. The stuff about her arrest, without some material as to what happened to her subsequent to the arrest, is, in my view, off-limits. What you - or someone else - could do is take the sources you cite and rebuild the article. It won't say too much more, but it will then at least have something in it by which to be judged. I have no desire to do it because I think it'll be a silly article, but not every other editor would necessarily agree on the notability issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Declined speedy[edit]

I've declined the speedy because the sourcing is enough to have this pass WP:A7. I don't know that she would pass notability guidelines if she went to AfD, but her notability is just enough to where she would pass a speedy deletion. I'd recommend an AfD for this one, as she is covered in places such as ZDNet so speedys are kind of not applicable for her. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Article Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Wikipedia is not a blog, Web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site especially for convicted felons. As far as WP:Notability goes, searches for the query terms C# viruses on Google and Bing yield no results for Vanvaeck as of this date.

"Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest."

  • Dark Liberty (talk) 05:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The only thing is notability is not temporary (WP:NOTTEMPORARY) and Gigabyte has been the focus of quite a bit of coverage and has even been mentioned in a few academic texts. Just because someone isn't currently in the news doesn't mean that they are no longer notable per our guidelines. As far as self-promotion goes, I doubt that she's had anything to do with the article at all, to be honest, as I've been the only person to edit this article since the last AfD earlier this year and I'm definitely not Gigabyte. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • As far as her crime goes, we do not delete articles because the person committed a crime or did something that you or I may find personally repugnant or irresponsible. If a person passes notability guidelines then they should have a Wikipedia article. The only time that we do delete articles of notable persons is when the individual in question requests that the article be removed, but even then the individual must be of a level of notability to where removing the article would not negatively impact Wikipedia. But as far as deleting articles based on what they're notable for, we can't delete based on that principle because it can and usually will be seen as discrimination and a bias. I don't mean that to come across as rude, just that we have to argue for deletion based upon notability purposes and the AfD back in February ended with a consensus that because she had received coverage in various areas (including academic textbooks), she did pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't want Wikipedia to become a biography of every living person. I really have respect for any academic and scientific contributions and believe that this information should be retained in some way, but it challenges my values as an editor, as well as the policies of Wikipedia. If Wikipedia’s policies allow for online biographies regardless of notability, anyone can create the name Gigabyte can promote themselves; Nevertheless, allow other editors (who have not participated in this discussion) to state their opinions.
  • Dark Liberty (talk) 05:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • True, anyone can name themselves "Gigabyte", but this specific Gigabyte has been the focus of coverage in reliable sources. Wikipedia's more exclusive than inclusive and if someone is ultimately judged by multiple editors to pass WP:BIO then they merit inclusion, regardless of how they achieved that notability. I'm sorry if you personally dislike the way she achieved that notability, as I'm not exactly a fan of people who gain notability via crimes myself, but she does pass notability guidelines. You can run it through AfD, but I believe that she is very likely to survive a second deletion attempt, especially since the last AfD was held only seven months prior. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
It is my wish to have this article, but it does not pass the Notability criteria as it returns nothing on C#, virus, Gigabyte or other keywords such as Vanvaeck in at least in the top20-30 results on major search engines; also, it is poorly written in weasel wording that constitutes as a personal attack that there is no reason to have the article. I have proposed a solution, but I would prefer to have the article reviewed by several editors, and if, by any reason, it does not pass the Notability criteria:
"Kimberley Vanvaeck, also known as her online name Gigabyte, is a virus writer known for a long-standing dispute which involved the internet security firm Sophos. Vanvaeck wrote several viruses, including Quis, Coconut, Sahay, and YahaSux. She also created a Sharp virus (also called "Sharpei"), credited as being the first virus to be written in C Sharp."
  • Dark Liberty (talk) 05:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • A person doesn't have to be in the top search results to be notable, as search hits are typically based on popularity (and popularity does not count towards or against notability per WP:ITSPOPULAR) and/or the preferences of the search engine itself. It's kind of why we don't use WP:GHITS as a rationale for either keeping or deleting something. As far as the writing goes, I don't entirely see where the article could be seen as an attack or containing weasel words. You can re-write it, but I don't think that we should remove all mention of Cluely because not only was it reported on in several, several reliable sources but she herself stated that she singled Cluely out for abuse because she saw his remarks as misogynistic. Saying that it was an attack against the company as a whole isn't entirely incorrect because she used the company as a proxy to get to him, but it's not really correct either because by what I've read it looks like she would not have attacked the company if not for Cluely. I'd also include the bit about her age and when she claims to have started writing viruses, as that has also been reported on in several areas. There's no reason not to include it. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll ask for a third opinion to come in on this because forgive me, but I really feel that you're editing with a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT mindset and your proposed edit would pretty much decimate the article. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry if you feel that you aren't editing with this viewpoint, but I'm just concerned that your arguments appear to be written from you personally disliking the way she achieved her notability and I'm also concerned that your proposed edit would strip the article of valuable information in an attempt to downplay the event and potentially argue for less notability than has been established in the past. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so we are going to make a biography for every living person, even if they cannot be found on search engines. Still with me here? References need to be verified. References need to be notable. That's a borderline extreme interpretation of Wikipedia's policies, and in my opinion, a rare exception you have made. I think 99% of your edits are correct.

However, any experienced editor will agree with me that the way the article is written does meet the Notability criteria; it is a miracle or an act of God that this article even exists.

Words from your own profile you swore to uphold:

  • "Popularity doesn't equate to notability on Wikipedia. All popularity means is that it's more likely that someone will cover it in a reliable source. You can have a person that's received more than a thousand visitors a second to their site, yet still never gained any coverage in reliable sources."
  • "Accomplishing something or being the only example of something may help gain coverage, but it's never a guarantee of actual coverage."
  • "Notability is not inherited by the subject having an association with someone notable. You may state that the virus author who had several media reports circulating around her, but that doesn't mean that the topic is notable."

I think you are protecting her because she is female, you need to have some other editors jump in. - but that's how you improve articles - you remove information that is not relevant, and add that you believe is important for everyone to know, in this case, that she created the C# virus, although none of the information in this article is relevant, but I am including it out of goodwill and process of self-doubt, and that all viewpoints that are notable should be available.

  • Dark Liberty (talk) 06:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

If you look at my proposed edit, it protect the person in the biography and portrays her in a friendly manner that is appropriate for an encyclopedic entry as well as public viewing. It's not personal. We can keep Cluely, by the way. Notability, however, not is something that the article, or the way it is written, does have. :)

  • Dark Liberty (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

To review board: Not sure where to post this, but protecting Cluely? I think that's kind of funny considering Cluely isn't the victim. It's protecting the person of the biography. I'm not putting this up because she's no longer on the news. I'm putting this up because no one can even find her on the web, lol. (See Above).

As far as academic texts goes, "What Wikipedia is Not" stated, "Wait, but I am a senior researcher in this field and I want to add my thought." Wikipedia isn't a repository for knowledge. I have no bias because my expertise in literary studies is the removal of bias and the improvement articles per the WMF (the founders). This is my first AfD candidate, usually I will look to improve the articles.

  • Dark Liberty (talk) 07:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • No, her being female has nothing to do with it, nor does Gigabyte's popularity. If anything, when I'd first come across the article in February I was initially 100% certain that she was non-notable and was going to argue for her deletion. However that's when I came across a rather large amount of coverage in reliable sources to the point where her notability is very clear. If it was just the news coverage I'd have probably argued for deletion but she's been included in several academic journals textbooks, some of which have been written as recently as 2010- 8 years after her arrest. It's not like the textbooks were written by unknown publishers either- ABC-CLIO and Springer are incredibly well-known in the academic world for their editorial oversight and the journals I included are all peer-reviewed, which also counts towards how reliable they are as a source. I'm not arguing that every person should have an article, I'm arguing that this specific person should have an article and that we should not ignore the RS coverage currently on the article because she currently comes up with zero hits in the first 20-30 pages of the search engine you are using. I also don't think that editing the article to remove information reported on in a large majority of the reliable sources on the article would benefit Wikipedia either. As for asking people to come in, you said that you wanted the opinions of other editors, so I asked for someone at Third Opinion to come in and give their viewpoint on the article and the arguments listed here. Now if you're wondering about the AfD tag removal, that was done by a non-involved editor because you placed the tag but never completed the AfD proceedings. After a set amount of time I believe it shows up on a list compiled by a bot of incomplete or malformed nominations. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • As far as protecting Gigabyte goes, we can't go around removing material or downplaying events just because it may possibly harm her- especially if the information has been widely reported on in a large variety of sourcing. To date she has yet to come on to Wikipedia and complain about how she has been depicted on here and nobody at the previous AfD complained about the article appearing defamatory. If anything, this version of the article is far more neutral than previous versions, some of which have been both fairly negative and fairly positive. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm also familiar with WP:NOT, but this doesn't fit into one of those areas because this isn't truly an article about a random person that completely lacks coverage. Gigabyte has had coverage and it's been over a period of 8 years, in news articles, academic textbooks, and peer-reviewed journals. It's not exactly like we're writing about some random person from the Internet that was written about in only 1-2 places. I've found notice of her in a large variety of places, most of which I didn't add because it'd just be redundant. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

As of September 01, you added extra references to protect the Notability of the article and increase the chances that the article won't be deleted. I'm afraid that won't help, as that hinders the AfD process.

Also, Wikipedia does not care if Gigabyte (virus writer) appears on a textbook, or appears on a renowned textbook. Then Wikipedia should include everything that existed on the New York Times on Wikipedia, because the source is Notable? One can't use a source that is Notable to prove that the subject is Notable.

If it's not Notable, it's going to be deleted. ;) Keeping the article will set a precedent that everyone can just use academic texts to create articles for everything that ever existed. I am sorry I jumped the gun here and created the section too quickly.

Sincerely, and much love,

  • Dark Liberty (talk) 07:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually... Wikipedia does care if people appear in textbooks, as that's a pretty big sign of notability. As far as the sources being notable (Springer, etc), I was mentioning their status in the academic world because they're known for being extremely reliable when it comes to fact-checking and reporting. They're also extremely, extremely exclusive when it comes to reporting since their goal is to inform on subjects that they (the textbook publishers and writers) think is of historical importance and would be of value for students to learn about in classrooms. There's already a large amount of precedence for this. Heck, the prior AfD for Gigabyte ended with it being kept due to the coverage in academic sources. I'm not sure if you're just trying to pull my leg or not on this, as this is already fairly well covered in the WP:SCHOLARSHIP section of WP:RS, which clearly states that academic sources can be used to establish notability. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dark Liberty: please don't restore the AfD tag without completing the AfD itself, see instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Ansh666 08:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Dark Liberty wrote: "As of September 01, you added extra references to protect the Notability of the article and increase the chances that the article won't be deleted. I'm afraid that won't help, as that hinders the AfD process."
In fact, editing an article to improve it during the deletion process is explicitly allowed for. See WP:EDITATAFD. Jeh (talk) 09:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Dark Liberty also wrote: "Wikipedia isn't a repository for knowledge."
Really? I've read that three times now, rubbed my eyes, lubricated my contacts, and it still seems to say "Wikipedia isn't a repository for knowledge." Huh? What? Jeh (talk) 09:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Archived Content[edit]

This section is for removed content, for reference:

"She began writing viruses when she was 14 years old and was 19 at the time of her arrest. Her Sharp virus (also called "Sharpei") is credited as being the first virus to be written in C Sharp, which Vanvaeck wrote to prove that it was possible to write a virus in C Sharp."

"Windows viruses take clean sweep of 2002 chart". Information Systems Auditor (subscription required). February 1, 2003. Retrieved 4 February 2014. 

Leyden, John (16 Feb 2004). "Belgian police arrest female virus writer". The Register. Retrieved 1 September 2014. 

"Malicious-software spreaders get sneakier, more prevalent". USA Today. Retrieved 4 February 2014. 

Note to software engineering editor: I see that you have never done collaborative work with the Wikimedia foundation or attended their seminars. I can see now why editors and staff are worlds apart. Wikipedia is repository of accepted and encyclopedic knowledge.

"Vanvaeck's dispute with Cluley began after he made several comments concerning the gender of virus writers, as Cluley believed that most were male. This prompted Vanvaeck to write several viruses that specifically targeted Cluley as the subject of ridicule. Vanvaeck also claimed to be part of the Metaphase VX Team, a group of virus writers."

Gráinne Kirwan, Andrew Power (2013). Cybercrime: The Psychology of Online Offenders. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 052118021X. 

  • This source about the motives of writing a virus would be very useful in the article on Cybercrime, but not relevant or appropriate for a bio. I'll add this reference later to the Cybercrime article.

Salomon, David (2010). Elements of Computer Security. Springer Publishing. p. 48. ISBN 9780857290069. Retrieved 1 September 2014. 

  • This source is about how the age virus writers have shifted from being young children to 25 - 28, but is not relevant to the article.

Dark Liberty (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Sturgeon, Will. "Belgian virus writer arrested". ZDNet. Retrieved 4 February 2014. 

"Female virus writer creates new worm". The Sydney Morning Herald. January 14, 2003. Retrieved 4 February 2014. 

McWilliams, Brian. "Virus Girl Finds Hacker Boyfriend". Wired (archives). Retrieved 4 February 2014. 

  • These are news sites which pertain more about her arrest rather than the creation of viruses; it would be better if we used secondary academic sources.

Dark Liberty (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm fine with the current version. I'd prefer that her age be included, but I'm fine without it as well. I do want to caution against removing everything from the article with the idea that we're protecting Gigabyte, though. Protection is good to practice, but from what I've found on the Internet shows that she herself has no problem with anyone knowing her past and giving out a great amount of detail about it. This appears to be her website, where she links to a Wikidot entry about her, which actually gives out far, far more information than this article actually had- including her year of birth. In other words, she sees to have little interest in being protected and actually seems to be fairly proud of her past, so we do need to make sure that we aren't overly censoring things just to censor them, especially as the material that was in the previous version (age, for example) was backed up in multiple RS. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)