Talk:Website spoofing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Content from up to March 2014


This group did a good job editing the article. I was unaware of the term "website spoofing" before I read this article, and now I have a clear understanding of what "website spoofing" entails. The setup of the page and the organization of the different sections is esthetically pleasing, which is what makes the reader's experience a successful one. The table of contents adds a certain amount of organization as well. One thing I might suggest is to explore making some subcategories that correspond with the bigger sections in order to create a more in depth picture without losing the organization. The example section is incredibly helpful in showing what a website spoof is as well. They did a nice job citing their references. (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)lacedel

The group did a fair job explaining what website spoofing is, and I think the examples section is fairly well written. I felt like there may be some difficulty in neutral language; a lot of their language and focus seemed quite biased. In particular, the identification and response sections didn't really seem like information that should be included in an encyclopedia article, and some parts felt particularly odd, such as the sentences, "If possible, certain employees should be assigned to monitor the site and make sure there are not fraudulent sites being created. If a fraudulent site is found, these employees are responsible for responding correctly." It sounds like it was cut and pasted from a consulting website, and who are these "certain employees"? Finally, many of their sources seem to be obscure or amateur websites, so higher quality sources could help strengthen their points. Karsus avatar (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Overall, I think that this group did a nice job editing the article. Right away I notice the clear structure of the article. The structure includes a lead section, table of contents, different sections, and a "see also" part at the bottom with related articles.The group does a nice job of describing what "website spoofing" is and I like how they not only describe, but they teach how to detect, avoid, and prevent oneself from being a victim of website spoofing. Additionally, their example of a spoofed website is very descriptive and really helps to paint the picture of what a true spoofed website is. However, I do believe that there are some things that the group could have done better. I think that the lead section should have been shortened and should have only included the first paragraph. The rest of the lead section could have been included in the sub-section called "techniques". On another note, I think that maybe some sort of image of a spoofed website could have been included to help viewers understand the concept. Finally, I think that a few more credible sources could have been added. There are a sufficient amount of footnotes and references, but not all of them seem to come from reliable and known sites. Jwise94 (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this item the same as Spoofed URL? (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Spoofed URL is where you set up a website pretending that it's the website of somebody else, for example, if I set up a site saying "Welcome to Bill Gates' homepage. You may have heard of me. I was one of the founders of Microsoft". This, website spoofing, is about humorous websites that usually have the look of news sites for comedy effect, with 'news' articles and so on. The Onion is the best example. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

For the most part, I believe that this group did a good job editing this article. The lead section was understandable, and successfully informs readers about what website spoofing is and why it is used. However, I think that some of the information should not have been included in the lead section, but instead should have been put under a category titled "The Objectives of Website Spoofing." In addition, the structure of this article is clear, and the group did a good job of using chronological order in this article (techniques, how to identify and prevent, how to respond, examples, ad then finally a "see also" section). Overall, this structure was good, but the "prevent" information would have been better if it was combined with the "how to respond" information in order to make this article more clear and understandable for readers. In addition, there was a good number of sources, footnotes and references within this article; however, not all of the sources seemed to be completely reliable. Also, in order to strengthen this article, there should have been more detailed descriptions provided about what a "spoofed" website looks like in comparison to a legitimate website because this key difference was not explained in the amount of detail that readers are most likely looking for. Although I do think this group did a good job of making the lengths of each section consistent, I think that this difference should have been emphasized more heavily. Finally, this article lacked an important section that should have been included about the dangers and risks of using a "fake website" in order to inform readers about just how serious this issue is. Josinski (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The article is short, and lacks any sections. First, more depth and breadth need to be added to the article. Also, this article and its sources are outdated and needed to be revamped. I would begin by expanding and solidifying the definition and then branching off from there. Possible sections could include: examples, motives, techniques, and so forth. Tarwets (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The article is a stub article that has not had many edits made to it. Updating sources to give more current information will be necessary. Possible headers for our project could include what website spoofing is, recent examples of spoofs, and how to prevent spoofing in the future. Richgrim (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The article is in it's beginning stages but lacks depth and detail. The article needs to further explain the process of creating a "fake" website, the intentions of the creators, and the dangers of accessing these websites. Adding sections to the article could help eliminate this issue and create a fuller and more complete article. Harris.teitelbaum (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This article lacks any specific examples of website spoofing. Real examples would be helpful to readers to gain a better sense of what website spoofing actually looks like. Also, there is no information on website spoofing prevention, which people visiting this page may be interested in. Overall, this article is disorganized and could use more detail. Kschwartz95 (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This article doesn't give much besides the definition of website spoofing. For it to be a successful and useful wikipedia article, we need to provide specific examples of website spoofing. It would also be helpful if we went into more depth with what creating a 'fake website' really means. We should be using more updated sources. We could talk about how to spot spoofing and how to prevent it. Overall this article needs a lot of work.Kylelf (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The article is interesting and generally informative, but lacks some real organization and in depth into certain areas of website spoofing. For example, in your first paragraph there's both a technique and example of website spoofing when clearly you have other separate headings to place these things under. Also, most of your main areas weren't explained well enough. For example, the "How to respond to Website Spoofing" gives the average person absolutely no specific information on what to do or how to contact anyone. (I'm pretty sure the FBI has more important things to do than to take my call to report a fake website). It's pretty much just a big suggestion layered with information about website spoofing that you've already told me about several times. Overall, the article is promising, but needs to be reorganized and give more information without repeating itself. Try redoing your main topics and finding better information about fake websites and examples of any legal actions being taken by companies or the FBI. You effectively communicated what website spoofing is, but never really took it in any other directions after that. WolverineWiki (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I really enjoyed the contribution this group made toward a Wikipedia page about website spoofing. I think the page provides a clear and broad definition of website spoofing and also highlights many examples of not only how such a crime occurs, but also ways to prevent it. However, every section is very light in content and does not really provide examples and techniques used by creators of website spoofing. I also think the introduction goes in way too much detail about what you are planning on talking about, which in turn makes the article very repetitive. I do commend the article for its clear chronological flow. I think having the following sections in its order helped the reader follow your topic (techniques, how to identify and prevent, how to respond, examples, and then a "see also" section. A more grammatical critique would be that organization is spelled with a "z" not an "s". You made that mistake in two cases. Overall, I know have a way better understanding of website spoofing than before and I am interested to look into the subjectBenjamsi (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


What a mess this article has gotten to be. Did anybody bother to read the Manual of Style before editing the article? In particular there's an excessive amount of "how-to" content and many WP:YOU violations. Unless somebody else wants to, I'll have to come back and work it over later (I do have a life outside of Wikipedia, you know), but for the moment I've put a nice cleanup-rewrite tag at the start for everybody to enjoy. MXocrossIIB (So, you were saying?); 18:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed a paragraph that was explaining a fake pregnancy test website. It wasn't well written in terms of style, and I think it was quite unnecessary anyway. I think it suffices to simply point it out as an example of a fake website with a link. People can go see for themselves, not much point in step by step explanations of what a website looks like and does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 03:17, 14 November 2014

Cleaning up this article[edit]

This article is in need of a serious cleanup. I was thinking that it might be easier to WP:BLOWUP. If anyone has particular comments they can leave them here, but I'll start work soon. Touch wood. —George8211 / T 21:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

  • This is the version of the article that I created and this is still there in the lead paragraphs. The rest of the article has been added later in a disjointed form. OK, I am hardly objective but stripping back to my original version and rebuilding from there would be one way forward. Just Chilling (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
    • @Just Chilling: that's probably a better solution. Shall we revert to that version and work from that almost clean slate? —George8211 / T 19:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
      • I am happy with that but best to wait a day or two for some other views so we can try to form a consensus. Just Chilling (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
        • @Just Chilling: rather than revert to that version, I've removed the sections that were added. This means a slightly bigger/different lead, and also the see also section. I wonder if MXocrossIIB has any thoughts? —George8211 / T 15:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Spoofing articles are a mess[edit]

Spoofed URL is an article that covers this topic in greater detail. We may need to merge. However, none of these articles seem to be aware of the existence of any of the others, which is a problem. --Lquilter (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)